Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dissolving the stay of execution, and thus all collection activity, upon a judgment issued by the circuit court holding that Appellants failed to show “extraordinary cause.”The underlying merits of the circuit court’s case concerned the Public Service Commission’s enforcement of a previously-obtained money judgment that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Because the trial court’s order did not specify the procedural grounds for its decision to stay the case pending the resolution of an ongoing administrative case, the Supreme Court analyzed this case as an appeal from an order imposing a temporary injunction. The Court then denied Appellants’ motion to vacate the Court of Appeals’ order and affirmed the lower appellate court, holding that the judgment was valid and enforceable and that the equities did not weigh in Plaintiff’s favor. View "Pollitt v. Public Service Commission of Kentucky" on Justia Law

On review of the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing a final order issued by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure issued against Appellee, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Court of Appeals misconstrued the relevant statutes.Upon the issuance of a complaint against a physician, a hearing officer is appointed to conduct and evidentiary hearing and issue a recommended order. Thereafter, a hearing panel of the Board considers the matter and determines either to dismiss the complaint or to issue a final order regarding the violation and an appropriate penalty. In the instant case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the hearing officer erred by not recommending a specific penalty and that the Board’s hearing panel also erred by not independently reviewing the entire evidentiary record before rendering a final order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Ky. Rev. Stat. 13B.110(1) allows a hearing officer to recommend a penalty but does not require him or her to do so; and (2) Ky. Rev. Stat. 13B.120(1) requires the Board to consider the record but does not require the Board to review the proceedings in their entirety before issuing a final order. View "Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure v. Strauss" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court ruling in favor of Peters Farms, LLC, which sued Ikerd Mining, LLC and Ikerd’s insurer, American Mining Insurance Company (AMIC), holding that Ikerd’s unauthorized removal of coal from Peters’ property was not an accident and therefore not covered under the insurance policy.The trial court concluded that Ikerd’s removal of coal from Peters’ property were “accidents,” which meant each “mistake” was an “occurrence” that unintentionally caused “property damage” as defined by Ikerd’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy. Therefore, the court concluded that the mineral removal was covered under the CGL policy. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the intentional removal and conversion of coal is not an “accident” constituting an “occurrence,” regardless of whether the trespass was willful or innocent. View "American Mining Insurance Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this case alleging that Defendants breached their duties under the Farm Animals Activity Act by failing to make a reasonable inquiry into Plaintiff’s ability to manage a horse named Flash before letting her ride the horse, holding that Defendants were not liable under the statute.When Plaintiff visited a stable owned by Defendants to test-ride horses for sale she was injured when she was thrown by Flash. Plaintiff sought compensation for her injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Court of Appeals revered, finding that Defendants had a duty to make a reasonable and prudent inquiry into Plaintiff’s ability to manage flash before letting her ride the horse and that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding Plaintiffs allegation that defendants caused Plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendants reasonably determined that Flash was suitable for Plaintiff to ride based upon Plaintiff's representations; and (2) no genuine issue of material fact existed as to Defendants’ liability under the statute. View "Daugherty v. Tabor" on Justia Law

In this dispute between neighboring landowners over the location of the boundary line between their adjoining properties the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Appellants, holding that the Court of Appeals exceeded its scope of review by reversing the trial court.The location of the boundary line in this case determined which of the parties was entitled to $440,000 of coal royalties from mining that occurred in the disputed area between the properties. The circuit court ruled in favor of Appellants. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment in favor of Appellees and the mining company. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining the boundary line in the manner that it did, that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings, and that the Court of Appeals erred by improperly substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. View "C.W. Hoskins Heirs v. Wells" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the circuit court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of Norfolk Southern Railway Company on Appellant’s complaint alleging negligence, holding that the circuit court correctly ruled that the common-law Firefighter’s Rule barred Appellant’s claim.Appellant, a patrol officer with the Danville Police Department, fell down an embankment and was injured while pursuing a suspect on foot. Appellant filed suit against Norfolk Southern, asserting that the embankment was a dangerous condition on the company’s premises and that the company was liable to her for the fall. The circuit court granted Norfolk Southern’s motion for a directed verdict, determining that Appellant’s claim was barred by the Firefighter’s Rule. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the case did not satisfy the three factors under the rule. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the circuit court’s directed verdict, holding that Appellant met the three prongs of the Firefighter’s Rule and may therefore not recover from Norfolk Southern. View "Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding a jury verdict against Appellants in the amount of $1,308,403 in compensatory damages and $2,686,000 in punitive damages, holding that the award of punitive damages, for what was essentially a breach of contract, was improper.The jury verdict arose from an action brought by Appellees asserting that Appellant violated its contractual obligations by fraudulently underpaying royalties owed under leases governing Appellants’ extraction of natural gas from Appellees’ land. Appellees brought its claim for unpaid royalties under breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation theories. The Supreme Court held (1) the award of punitive damages was improper; (2) the award of compensatory damages as determined by the trial court and jury was proper; and (3) Appellants’ post-verdict motions were timely made, no errors committed during trial warranted a new trial, and the trial court did not err in denying Appellees’ motion to amend the complaint. View "Nami Resources Co., LLC v. Asher Land & Mineral, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences for first-degree rape, incest, and first-degree sexual abuse but vacated his conviction for second-degree fleeing or evading and the portion of the trial court’s judgment imposing a fine, holding (1) the Commonwealth erred in failing to re-present the case to the grand jury after the indictment against Defendant was dismissed, but Defendant’s due process rights were not violated; (2) the Commonwealth concedes that there was insufficient evidence for Defendant’s conviction of second-degree fleeing or evading; (3) the trial court did not err in failing to grant a mistrial after the victim testified to evidence that had been excluded by the trial court; (4) Defendant’s verdicts for rape, incest, and sexual abuse were unanimous; and (5) the Commonwealth concedes that the trial court erred in imposing a fine on an indigent defendant. View "Kelly v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded Defendant’s conviction for two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and affirmed his conviction for two counts of first-degree sodomy, holding that the jury instructions on the sexual abuse counts violated the unanimity requirement.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court erred in allowing duplicitous instructions on sexual abuse in violation of the unanimity requirement for jury verdicts; (2) the jury instructions for sexual abuse and for sodomy did not subject Defendant to double jeopardy; (3) the trial court did not err in the method of impeachment of the victim’s testimony or in admitting a recorded interview; (4) the trial court erred by admitting a recorded phone call as an adoptive admission, but the error was harmless; and (5) any error in running Defendant’s sentences consecutively instead of concurrently will be cured on remand. View "King v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new persistent felony offender (PFO) and sentencing trial because because the proceedings were fundamentally unfair.A jury found Defendant guilty of robbery and two counts of kidnapping and found Defendant to be a PFO. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the two kidnapping charges, but before Defendant was retried on the kidnapping charges, he filed a RCr 11.42 motion alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from a juror’s presence on the jury who was biased toward Defendant. The circuit court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court held (1) the guilt phase of trial was not fundamentally unfair where no one knew of the juror’s bias toward Defendant during voir dire or the guilt phase of the trial; but (2) once the juror realized that he was Defendant’s former victim prejudice could be presumed, and Defendant was entitled to a new PFO and sentencing trial. View "Commonwealth v. Douglas" on Justia Law