Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mary Smith was discharged from her employment with the Estill County Fiscal Court after complaining about working conditions. The Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission found that the Fiscal Court’s discharge of Smith was a violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 338.121(3)(a) because her letter constituted an occupational health “complaint.” The circuit court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by interpreting what action constitutes a “complaint” under the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Act (KOSHA) because only the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Board, the quasi-legislative body under KOSHA, could interpret the meaning of undefined terms. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the final order of the Commission, holding that the Commission reasonably interpreted the word “complaint,” and that interpretation was in accord with the purpose of KOSHA. View "Kentucky Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission v. Estill County Fiscal Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of second degree assault, one count of fourth degree assault, and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant to seventeen years’ imprisonment and made a finding that Defendant’s actions constituted a hate crime under Ky. Rev. Stat. 532.031. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but reversed the trial court’s designation of Defendant’s second-degree assaults as hate crimes, holding (1) section 532.031 is constitutional as written and as applied to Defendant; (2) there was sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant’s perception of one victim’s sexuality was a primary factor in his assaulting her; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support a designation of the other three assaults as hate crimes; (4) the trial court did not make prejudicially erroneous rulings on certain evidentiary issues; (5) any error by the trial court in denying Defendant’s request to conduct re-re-direct did not limit Defendant’s ability to effectively present a defense; and (6) any error in the jury instructions had no impact on Defendant’s substantial rights. View "Burke v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The circuit court dissolved the marriage of Husband and Wife and awarded Wife child support, reserving several other issues, including maintenance and property division, for later disposition. After those issues were decided, Husband appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in determining that the equity in the residence was marital property; and (2) abused its discretion in designating all household goods and furnishings as marital property and ordering those items divided by a random drawing. View "Barber v. Bradley" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree robbery, first degree assault, reckless homicide, and tampering with physical evidence. Appellant was sentenced to a total sentence of twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for first degree robbery, reckless homicide, and tampering with physical evidence but reversed his conviction for first degree assault, holding (1) Appellant was not denied a fair trial by the presence of courtroom spectators wearing t-shirts sympathetic to the victim; (2) Appellant was improperly convicted of first degree assault because Appellant’s first degree assault charge merged into his reckless homicide charge; (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss four jurors for cause; (4) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for a voluntary intoxication instruction; and (5) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s request for a duress instruction. Remanded. View "Hammond v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance. Defendant was sentenced as a first-degree persistent felon to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) delays in bringing Defendant to trial - both the nearly five-year delay between indictment and trial and the more than 180-day delay following Defendant’s pro se speedy-trial motion - did not violate Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights to a prompt disposition of his charges; (2) law enforcement officers’ warrantless entry of Defendant’s apartment did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches; (3) none of what Defendant claimed were evidentiary errors was reversible; and (4) the judgment should clearly reflect that Defendant’s twenty-year sentence runs concurrently with his life sentence. View "Goben v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Keeneland Association, Inc. entered into a contract with Appalachian Racing, LLC to preserve its interest in purchasing Appalachian Racing’s ownership of the racing track Thunder Ridge. Floyd County held bonds that were to be paid upon Keeneland’s purchase of Thunder Ridge. While the contract was pending, Keeneland applied for a license with the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission on behalf of Cumberland Run, LLC to operate another racing track. The Commission issued a public notice that it would review and consider the application. Appalachian Racing, joined by Floyd County, sued the Commission on a theory of aiding and abetting fraud and tortious interference with a prospective advantage. The circuit court issued a restraining order prohibiting the Commission from considering or taking any action on the license application. The Commission then sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing its restraining order. The court of appeals granted the Commission’s request determining that the circuit court violated Kentucky’s separation of powers doctrine in issuing the order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was nothing in the present suit that authorized the circuit court to prevent the Commission from considering Keeneland’s application. View "Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Husband petitioned for dissolution of his marriage from Wife. Previous to filing this action, however, Husband was declared incompetent and Wife was appointed as his guardian and conservator. The trial court dismissed Husband’s petition on the basis that a person who has been declared incompetent cannot bring a legal action in Kentucky. The court of appeals affirmed. Both courts relied exclusively on the 1943 case of Johnson v. Johnson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there is not a Johnson issue in this case because the guardian was not bringing this action as required by Civil Rule 17.03(1); and (2) it necessarily follows that this case was procedurally flawed. View "Riehle v. Riehle" on Justia Law

Eddie Ray Thomas, Jr. died from a heart attack while attempting to tow a truck from a roadside culvert. Eddie’s estate filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. During the proceedings, the estate offered various testimony supporting the estate’s claim that Eddie’s heart attack was work-related, thus meeting its burden of proving that Eddie’s death was work-related without the presumption provided by Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.680. Eddie’s employer attempted to rebut the statutory presumption with testimony by Dr. Roseman. An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Eddie’s death was not work-related, finding that Eddie suffered from pre-existing and active ischemic heart disease and that any anxiety Eddie suffered at the time of his death was not work-related. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the matter to the ALJ with instructions to award benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Dr. Roseman’s opinion was not evidence of substance, and therefore, the presumption stood and the ALJ was required to award benefits. View "Eddie’s Service Center v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Shortly after leaving Liberty Place Recovery Center for Women, LLC, a substance abuse recovery program administered by Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc., Melissa Steffen committed suicide. Steffen’s estate and the guardians of Melissa’s children sued Liberty Place and Kentucky River. Before trial, Kentucky River filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The circuit court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed but for reasons that differed from those set forth by the circuit court and the court of appeals, holding that Kentucky River did not have immunity with regard to its operation of Liberty Place. View "Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc. v. Phirman" on Justia Law

Pennie and John DuBarry were divorced in 2013. Pennie was represented by Thomas Stone during the divorce proceedings. The family court entered a decree of dissolution incorporating a property settlement agreement. Stone subsequently filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw as counsel for Pennie and a notice of attorney’s lien and intent to hold property liable, listing the marital residence as the property subject to the lien. John, in turn, asked the court to release the lien, arguing that the lien was improper because he had been awarded the marital residence under the settlement agreement. The trial court granted John’s motion and set aside the lien. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the attorney’s fees lien statute does not apply to property assigned or divided in divorce proceedings; but (2) an attorney may obtain a contractual lien through his contract of employment with a client, and that lien may be upheld against assets held by his client after entry of the decree if the employment contract so provides. View "Stone v. Bubarry" on Justia Law