Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals determining that Appellant, Auslander Properties, LLC, was an “employer” and thus subject to certain employee safety regulations promulgated pursuant to the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Act (KOSHA), Ky. Rev. Stat. 338, and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., and that Appellant had violated duties owed to Appellee, Joseph Herman Nalley, under KOSHA.The trial court awarded Nalley compensatory damages for serious personal injuries he sustained while working on a roof at property owned by Appellant. The Supreme Court remanded the case for dismissal of Nalley’s claim, holding (1) contrary to Nalley’s argument, Appellant properly appealed the denial of summary judgment seeking reversal of the trial court judgment; and (2) Appellant was entitled to dismissal of the negligence per se claim because Nalley was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the LLC, and the responsibility for complying with safety laws applicable to the specialized work Nalley was performing at the time of his injury was upon Nalley. View "Auslander Properties, LLC v. Nalley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s complaint, holding that Plaintiff presented a genuine issue of material fact as to his breach of contract claim.Plaintiff brought claims against Defendant, his former employer, for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of conversion and denied the motion as to the remaining issues. Upon reconsideration, the trial court vacated its original opinion and order, holding that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on all claims. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded this case to the trial court for further factual determinations regarding the alleged breach of contract, holding that the parties formed a valid contract, and there were sufficient genuine issues of material fact for Plaintiff to withstand a motion for summary judgment. View "Baumann Paper Co., Inc. v. Holland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court, which denied Defendant’s Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 motion without a hearing.Defendant pled guilty to second-degree terroristic threatening, criminal attempt to commit kidnapping, and other offenses. Upon his release from prison, Defendant learned that he was obligated to register under Ky. Rev. Stat. 17.510 as a person who had committed sex crimes or crimes against minors. Defendant filed this Rule 11.42 motion, asserting that counsel had never discussed the sex offender registration requirement with him. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding that counsel’s failure to inform his client of the post-conviction registration requirement and the circuit court’s failure to include registration notification in the sentencing order did not warrant action under Rule 11.42. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) counsel’s failure to advise Defendant of the sex offender registration requirement constituted deficient performance; and (2) the case must be remanded to the circuit court to evaluate whether Defendant’s counsel’s deficient performance caused him prejudice. View "Commonwealth v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court’s denial of Defendant’s request to decrease his bond and instead increasing it from $10,000 to $20,000 full cash, holding that the indictment charging Defendant with certain crimes was a change in Defendant’s status sufficient to authorize the circuit court to summarily exercise a new discretion as to the amount of bail.Defendant was arraigned by the district court on a charge of one count of second-degree burglary. The court set Defendant’s bond at $10,000 full cash. Thereafter, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with second-degree burglary and theft by unlawful taking of property valued over $500 but less than $10,000. At the initial hearing, the circuit court fixed a bond “in the interim” at $10,000. Defendant then filed a Ky. R. Crim. P. 4.40(1) motion for bond reduction and for release on bail credit for his jail time. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in modifying Defendant’s bond to $20,000 full cash and denying him bail credit. View "Jeter v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of four counts first-degree sodomy and one count of first-degree rape and Defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment on each sodomy conviction and twenty years’ imprisonment for the rape conviction, holding that none of Defendant’s claims of error warranted reversal.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was not violated when the prosecutor, with the court’s permission, blocked Defendant from viewing the victim during trial; and (2) any error in the admission of certain testimony did not require reversal. View "Walker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the district court juvenile session that B.H. was incompetent to stand trial and dismissing the charges against him.B.H. was arrested for first-degree robbery and murder that occurred before he sustained severe injuries in an automobile accident. The Commonwealth moved to transfer B.H.’s case to circuit court. B.H. moved for a competency evaluation. The district court granted B.H.’s motion for a competency evaluation, conducted a competency hearing, and found B.H. incompetent to stand trial and unlikely to attain competency in the foreseeable future. The court then dismissed the charges without prejudice. On appeal, the court of appeals held that the Commonwealth had waived its right to contest any error by failing to object to the competency determination at any stage of litigation prior to discretionary review with the court of appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile session of the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to conduct a competency hearing, and the Commonwealth waived its right to object to lack of particular case jurisdiction; and (2) the federal Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth support holding competency hearings, if necessary, prior to transfer proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. B.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant on fourteen counts of first-degree robbery and for being a first-degree persistent felony offender.Defendant, along with his co-defendant, was indicted for thirty-one counts of first-degree robbery, one count for each individual victim present at fourteen different robberies that occurred within less than two months. The counts were tried together, and a jury convicted Defendant of fourteen counts of first-degree robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) failing to sever some of the thirty-one counts of robbery; (2) permitting three police officers to testify that the robberies were all related to each other; and (3) informing the jury that it had ruled that both defendants should be tried together on all charges. View "Davidson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles of Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Motorist Mutual Insurance Co., 306 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2010), to hold that a contractor’s faulty workmanship on the basement and foundation of an existing structure, which resulted in extensive damage to the entire building, was not an accident triggering coverage as an occurrence under the contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy.The policy provided that the insurer (Insurer) would pay for property damage if it resulted from an “occurrence.” The trial court ruled that Plaintiff could recover from Insurer under the policy for the damage to the structure above the basement level because the damage was an unexpected and unintended consequence of the contractor’s faulty work on the basement. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that none of the structural damage qualified as an accident triggering coverage as an occurrence under Insurer’s CGL policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court failed to focus on the proper elements from Cincinnati. View "Martin/Elias Properties, LLC v. Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court’s entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of Big Sandy Company, LP, interpreting a pipeline easement agreement (the Agreement) in Big Sandy’s favor.In 2003, Big Sandy entered into the Agreement with Kentucky West Virginia Gas Company, LLC (KWVA), the predecessor in interest of EQT Gathering, LLC and EQT Production Company (collectively, EQT). EQT filed suit against Big Sandy requesting declaratory relief regarding the interpretation and scope of the Agreement. The trial court concluded that Big Sandy’s interpretation prevailed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Big Sandy’s interpretation would be absurd and render much of the Agreement meaningless. The Supreme court reversed, holding that the trial court properly interpreted the Agreement. View "Big Sandy Co., L.P. v. EQT Gathering, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court’s entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of Big Sandy Company, LP, interpreting a pipeline easement agreement (the Agreement) in Big Sandy’s favor.In 2003, Big Sandy entered into the Agreement with Kentucky West Virginia Gas Company, LLC (KWVA), the predecessor in interest of EQT Gathering, LLC and EQT Production Company (collectively, EQT). EQT filed suit against Big Sandy requesting declaratory relief regarding the interpretation and scope of the Agreement. The trial court concluded that Big Sandy’s interpretation prevailed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Big Sandy’s interpretation would be absurd and render much of the Agreement meaningless. The Supreme court reversed, holding that the trial court properly interpreted the Agreement. View "Big Sandy Co., L.P. v. EQT Gathering, LLC" on Justia Law