LawReader posts 23 cases of the Ky. Ct. of Appeals released on August 11, 2006.

 A complete synopsis and full text access is available on .
You can sign up immediately online for only $34.95 per month.

1 11.42 motion denied
2 the existence of a durable power of attorney cannot prevent the institution of guardianship proceedings. —  the courts of the Commonwealth have inherent power to impose attorney’s fees and related expenses on a party as a sanction for bad faith conduct, regardless of the
existence of statutory
3 as the QDRO was only an enforcement of that order, it did not amount to an improper modification of it.
4 The court is also at liberty to interpret evidence as it sees fit. Its finding may not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence
5 A trial court enjoys broad discretion to determine custody of children, and its decision will not be disturbed in the absence of clear error. As the finder of fact, it is in the best position to observe the parties
6 the family court did not abuse its discretion in naming the father as the primary residential custodian
7 While the court made the observation the RCr 11.42 motion represents a complete and total waste of judicial resources and is a farce upon the legal system�, the court cited to and applied the Strickland test..
8 professional degree can be considered when the court is dividing marital property and allocating responsibility for debt.
9 TO BE PUBLISHED: Since Poe was not arrested at that point, his other two arguments that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and that his actions were the result of rightfully resisting an unlawful arrest are baseless
10 disputed evidence provided the prosecutor with a sufficient basis to support his statements in his closing argument that Mason had been untruthful to the jury.
11 Sex offenders  failure to complete the program is good and sufficient cause to revoke the period of conditional discharge
12 When a resident and a non-resident business entity engage in interstate business transactions with each other in which the non-resident places orders with the resident and the resident manufactures the product and ships it to the nonresident, it is our view that each of them have transacted business in both states.
13 Appellants failed to preserve their objection to the trial court’s calculation of damages
14 the court incorrectly relied on the medical opinion of the mother’s psychiatrist that she was able to care for the child safely. The court issued incomplete findings of fact
15 Once Castile admitted his crime, any need to determine whether A.L.’s statements concerning the abuse were reliable became moot.
16 this  was an argument that could have been raised by Davidson in his RCr 11.42 motion. Therefore, pursuant to the Gross case, he was precluded from raising the issue in a CR 60.02 motion.
17 “Alleged defamatory statements must be construed in the context of the entire communication.� Biber, 155 S.W.3d at 738. “Pure opinion, which is absolutely privileged, occurs where the commentator states the facts on which the opinion is based, or where both parties to the communication know or assume the exclusive facts on which the comment is clearly based.�
18 the McCracken Family Court did not err in denying  motion to modify the custody arrangement so as to name her as the primary custodian of her minor child
19 and a sheriff may revoke prior appointments of deputy at-will where the county has not established a deputy sheriff merit board.
20 Before a custody decree may be modified, the court must find that modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. See KRS 403.340(3). In determining the best interests of the child, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the nine factors listed in KRS 403.270(2).
21 Viewing the evidence as a whole it is beyond doubt that admission of the evidence, if it was error, was harmless.
22 His signature on the “Motion to Enter Guilty Plea� affirms his understanding of his plea and that it was freely, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
23 TO BE PUBLISHED We cannot agree that the Cabinet is barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion from introducing evidence that might identify R.H. as the perpetrator of the prior sexual abuse. This evidence is highly relevant to establish whether M.A.H. is an abused or neglected child.

Comments are closed.