Kentucky Ct. of Appeals Decisions for April 21, 2006

These important cases may be found on


LawReader Case No.
 1 The relevant statute presumes that possession of more than twenty-four grams of pseudoephedrine is prima facie evidence of the intent to manufacture. KRS 218A.1437
2 Even if Penn did not receive this notification, he has failed to explain how he has been prejudiced. This claim (for open records) is without merit.
3 Because Serey has failed to raise the abuse of process claim in his brief, we deem it to be waived or abandoned

4 The burden of proof in a malpractice case is, of course, on the party charging negligence or wrong.  
5 we erred by reconsidering our earlier opinion and thus now dismiss this appeal again for the reasons discussed below.

6 we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hazelwood’s motion for relief under CR 60.02

7 the circuit court correctly proceeded to a determination that the roadway was not abandoned under common law principles

8 appellant has failed to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary remedy available under CR 60.02.

9 However, as the monthly benefit paid directly to the child is considered that child’s independent source of income, and “not to be counted as income to either parent when calculating a child support obligation,� the trial court did not incorrectly allow a credit against Deanna’s monthly obligation.

10 we are unable to say that the trial court’s award of maintenance in this case constituted an abuse of discretion.

11, because Brown’s words imputed the criminal act of shoplifting, Boggs has made out a case of slander per se

12 Actionable outrage requires “a deviation from all reasonable bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community.�

13“a voluntary guilty plea . . .waive[s] all defenses other than that the indictment charges no offense.�  
14 Under the highest and best use approach, the nursery stock is not separately valuated

15 contempt order upheld
16 He has failed to show that the Cabinet has shirked its regulatory responsibilities.
17 We reverse the trial court’s increase in child support and remand the matter for calculation of appellant’s obligation, with legal interest, regarding expenses owed to Large.

18 Inmate was not entitled to counsel in an action which he initiated

19 the Board did not err by affirming the ALJ’s denial of Walker’s claim.
20 we cannot say that the ALJ or the Board has committed an error in assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause Walden a gross injustice.

21 even though we may have decided the matter differently, we must affirm the Board because the record does not compel a different result.

Comments are closed.