Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against Richmond Health Facilities-Madison, LP (Richmond Health) and Extendicare, Inc. (Extendicare) alleging wrongful death, nursing-home abuse, and corporate negligence. During discovery, Plaintiff sought the production of documents relating to Richmond Health’s clinical monitoring and oversight and well as documents dealing with corporate finance matters alleged to indicate Extendicare’s negligence in funding Richmond Health. When Richmond Health and Extendicare rejected Plaintiff’s requests, the trial court ordered the co-defendants to produce the documents. The co-defendants separately sought prohibitive writs from the court of appeals, arguing that the documents were privileged and that their financial information was irrelevant. The court of appeals denied the writ petitions. The Supreme Court also affirmed the court of appeals and denied the issuance of a writ, holding that the petitions did not meet the Court’s writ standard and would be nothing more than advisory. View "Richmond Health Facilities-Madison, LP v. Madison Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on the sodomy charge; but (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from the Commonwealth’s investigating officer regarding the discredited theory of child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome and that a local task force on child sex abuse recommended Appellant’s indictment improperly bolstered the alleged victim’s credibility, resulting in palpable error and manifest injustice. View "King v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter. Defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison. On appeal, the court of appeals vacated Defendant’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that impermissible trial testimony of a police sergeant constituted palpable error. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and reinstated the judgment of the circuit court, holding that although the sergeant’s contested testimony was impermissible, it did not threaten Defendant’s entitlement to due process of law, as the error was far from palpable. View "Commonwealth v. Rieder" on Justia Law

Employee was employed by Employer for three months as a bulldozer operator. On April 16, 2012, Employee filed a workers’ compensation claim against Employer, alleging cumulative trauma and an injury date of February 7, 2012. Before his employment with Employer, Employee had worked as a bulldozer operated for other employers for approximately thirty years. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Employee sustained cumulative trauma injuries that became manifest on February 7, 2012, while he was employed by Employer, and that he was permanently and totally disabled. The Workers’ Compensation Board vacated and remanded, concluding (1) February 7, 2012 could not be the date of manifestation, and (2) Southern Kentucky Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. Campbell required apportionment of liability based upon the percentage of Employee’s impairment attributable to the three months he worked for Employer. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and reinstated the decision of the ALJ, holding (1) there was a sufficient evidentiary foundation to support the ALJ’s award; (2) the date of manifestation was February 7, 2012, as stipulated by the parties; and (3) Kentucky Southern Concrete was inapplicable. View "Hale v. CDR Operations, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant owned land that was adjoined by Plaintiff’s property. In the course of cutting timber for Defendant, a logger trespassed on Plaintiff’s property and cut and sold a substantial amount of timber on her property. Plaintiff sued for trespass, seeking damages for the missing timber and the damage to the land. The trial court awarded stumpage value and damages but did not award treble damages based on its finding that Defendant had no intent to remove timber from Plaintiff’s property. The court of appeals (1) vacated the circuit court’s ruling on treble damages and remanded for additional findings and further proceedings, and (2) affirmed on Defendant’s cross-appeal. The Supreme Court (1) upheld the court of appeals in its affirming the trial court in the determination that Defendant was liable for damages for trespass; but (2) reversed the court of appeals in determining that Defendant was subject to treble damages, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant intended to convert Plaintiff’s timber for his own use. View "Penix v. Delong" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to twenty years in prison. On appeal, Appellant argued that that his incriminating utterance to police during his arrest should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful search, seizure, and arrest because the policy unlawfully located and identified him during the course of a protective sweep at a Louisville residence, which led to his unlawful arrest and incriminating statement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that suppression of Appellant’s spontaneous utterance was not required because the police officers’ initial entry into the residence was consensual, the scope of the protective sweep was reasonable, the seizure of Appellant was lawful, and Appellant’s incriminating statement was spontaneous and not the product of custodial interrogation. View "Simpson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Wife filed a domestic violence petition against Husband. Following a hearing, the family court entered a domestic violence order (DVO) against Husband, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that acts of domestic violence or abuse had occurred and may occur again. Husband appealed, arguing that the family court erroneously relied on domestic violence “lethality factors” rather than the standard set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 403.702 and 403.750 when entering the DVO. The court of appeals affirmed the DVO. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court adhered to the proper standard and that its reference to lethality factors did not indicate otherwise. View "Pettingill v. Pettingill" on Justia Law

In 1989, Appellant was injured in the course of her employment with Appellee. Appellant was awarded workers’ compensation benefits, including lifetime medical benefits for treatment of the injury. In 2012, Appellee filed this medical-fee dispute to contest the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment being provided by Appellant’s treating physician, as well as the relatedness of the treatment to the 1989 work injury. An administrative law judge found that the treatment was compensable, and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence compelled a finding that the treatment at issue in this medical dispute was non-compensable. View "Kingery v. Sumitomo Elec. Wiring" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Campbell County Fiscal Court adopted an ordinance replacing a monthly subscriber fee per landline telephone to fund the emergency 911 service in the County with an annual service fee levied upon each occupied individual residential and commercial unit within the county. Plaintiff, an apartment association, filed a declaratory action alleging that the ordinance was an unconstitutional and invalid exercise of the County’s authority. The trial court affirmed the ordinance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the fee imposed by the County to fund the emergency 911 service was a constitutional and statutorily valid exercise of its authority. View "Greater Cincinnati/N. Ky. Apartment Ass’n, Inc v. Campbell County Fiscal Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of seven counts of first-degree robbery. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a total of twenty-four years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and corresponding sentences, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless global positioning system tracking of a vehicle Appellant drove; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict as to some of his charges; and (3) did not err in failing to fully grant Appellant’s motion to sever. View "Thornton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law