Dan Jack Combs

The case concerned a father's appeal of the dismissal of his motion to modify child custody in Kentucky after his ex-wife moved their son to Colorado. The trial court had ruled that Kentucky lost jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the child no longer had significant connections to the state. The Court of Appeals vacated the order and remanded, reasoning that the trial court failed to apply the mandatory factors under KRS 403.834 for declining jurisdiction and erred in finding no significant connections given the father's ongoing residence and the child's visits in Kentucky.

family law

In Lisle v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault, third offense, violation of a domestic violence order, and being a persistent felony offender after an incident in which he assaulted his girlfriend. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for fourth-degree assault as a third offense, finding that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence proving that the two prior assault convictions involved family members or members of an unmarried couple as required by KRS 508.032. The court affirmed the underlying convictions for fourth-degree assault and violation of the DVO, however, and remanded those matters for sentencing, while noting that the statute allows a jury or judge to treat the third-offense charge as a misdemeanor even when the prior convictions are established. The decision turned on the requirement that the prior convictions be treated as elements of the offense that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than mere sentencing factors.

criminal lawfamily law

In Nelson v. Nelson, Gary Nelson appealed a Hopkins Family Court order requiring him to pay $729 per month in support for his adult daughter Ashley, who has developmental disabilities and works only part-time. The court affirmed the order, finding that Ashley qualifies as a wholly dependent person under KRS 405.020(2) due to permanent physical and mental impairments that prevent her from living independently or supporting herself. Although the parties' divorce settlement had limited Gary's obligation to $150 per month during periods of unemployment, the court held that the agreement did not control because anticipated Social Security benefits were denied and Ashley's need for support had not changed. The family court's factual determination of dependency was supported by substantial evidence from medical records, psychological evaluations, and testimony, and thus was not clearly erroneous.

family law

The case involved Charles Allen's appeal from his conviction in Ohio Circuit Court on eleven counts of first-degree sexual abuse, for which he was sentenced to eleven years in prison, based on allegations that he repeatedly abused his stepdaughter over several years beginning when she was thirteen. Allen raised multiple claims of error, including that the trial court should have struck a prospective juror for cause due to the juror's personal history of sexual abuse by his father, that the Commonwealth improperly bolstered witness testimony, that the multiple charges violated double jeopardy, and that evidence of prior bad acts was improperly admitted. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court correctly denied Allen's motions on all grounds, including the juror challenge, because the juror affirmed his ability to decide the case impartially based on the evidence. A separate opinion disagreed on the juror issue, arguing that precedent required reversal because the failure to strike the juror for cause deprived Allen of a peremptory challenge.

criminal lawprocedure

In Johnson v. Commonwealth, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and first-degree persistent felony offender status, along with an order forfeiting cash seized during a search of his hotel room. The court affirmed the trafficking and paraphernalia convictions and the forfeiture but reversed the PFO conviction and remanded for resentencing. The PFO reversal rested on the conclusion that Johnson's prior Florida offenses did not qualify under KRS 532.080 because they involved withheld adjudication and did not impose a sentence of one year or more of imprisonment. The court found the evidence sufficient for the drug convictions based on the officers' testimony and Johnson's admissions, and upheld the forfeiture because the cash was in close proximity to the drugs with denominations matching typical crack sales, creating a presumption that the defendant did not rebut by clear and convincing evidence.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

In Reyna v. Commonwealth, the appellant, a legal resident alien from Mexico, sought to vacate his 1999 guilty plea to assault under extreme emotional disturbance via a CR 60.02 motion, claiming the plea was involuntary because neither the court nor counsel informed him that conviction would trigger automatic deportation under federal law. After serving his five-year sentence and being deported, Reyna illegally reentered the U.S. and faced further penalties; he had previously filed an unsuccessful RCr 11.42 motion on similar grounds. The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the CR 60.02 motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that deportation is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea with no constitutional implications requiring disclosure. The court further noted that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time as required by CR 60.02(f).

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

The case involved three telecommunications companies challenging an order by the Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) requiring them to refund portions of payphone line rates collected from independent providers, which had been affirmed by the Franklin Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision. The court reasoned that the PSC lacked authority under Kentucky statutes to order retroactive refunds of rates approved on an interim basis, and that FCC orders under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not preempt state regulatory requirements for rate changes.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

Kevin Bishop sued Manpower, Inc., a temporary employment agency, alleging he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for pursuing a workers' compensation claim after a workplace injury, in violation of KRS 342.197. The trial court granted summary judgment to Manpower, concluding that the company had a legitimate reason for firing Bishop based on excessive absenteeism and that Bishop failed to show the reason was pretextual. The Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, finding sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, including the company's flexibility on its absentee policy before the claim, its closer scrutiny of Bishop's record afterward, and disputes over whether he was clearly instructed to return to work. The court affirmed the denial of punitive damages, holding that the statute permits only actual damages and the jural rights doctrine does not extend to this statutory claim.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Bennett v. Commonwealth, two defendants appealed the denial of their motions to dismiss drug trafficking charges on double jeopardy grounds following a mistrial. The court held that the defendants' own motions for a mistrial generally barred their double jeopardy claims, absent any intentional misconduct by the prosecutor to provoke the mistrial. The trial court had properly found manifest necessity for the mistrial due to improperly introduced evidence that tainted the joint trial. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the judgments after the defendants entered conditional guilty pleas.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Michael Pennington, an employee of a painting subcontractor on a plant retrofit project, who suffered injuries in a fall from an elevated platform into an uncovered hole dug by the general contractor, Jenkins-Essex Construction, and sued Jenkins-Essex for negligence in failing to provide a safe workplace. The Hardin Circuit Court granted partial summary judgment to Jenkins-Essex, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Jenkins-Essex was entitled to up-the-ladder immunity under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act, barring the tort claim due to the exclusivity remedy provision. The reasoning was that KRS 342.610 deems a general contractor a statutory employer liable for compensation to subcontractor employees, and KRS 342.690 makes that liability exclusive when the subcontractor has secured workers’ compensation coverage, as Mann Painting had done here.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Dollar General Partners v. Upchurch, a former store manager sued his employer for retaliatory discharge under KRS 342.197 after being fired shortly following a workers’ compensation claim for a work-related back injury. The jury found in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded back pay and front pay, but the employer appealed on issues including the denial of a directed verdict, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and submission of punitive damages. The court affirmed the liability finding, concluding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation with sufficient evidence of a causal link between the protected activity and termination, but reversed the front-pay award as speculative, limited back pay to the period of active job search, and held that punitive damages are not recoverable under the statute’s “actual damages” provision.

labor & employment

In Catron v. Citizens Union Bank, the case involved a dispute over a promissory note executed by attorney Stephen Catron with the Bank, secured by pledged shares of stock as collateral. After multiple late payments and Catron's reissuance of the collateral shares in his own name, the Bank accelerated the loan and sued for the full principal plus interest and fees; Catron defended by claiming a course of dealing from prior late-payment acceptances, a disputed reinstatement agreement amount, and unconscionable note terms. The Warren Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the Bank, which the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the note's explicit waiver provisions and default terms barred estoppel or notice arguments, no material facts existed regarding any reinstatement deal or unconscionability, and the issues were properly resolved as a matter of law under CR 56.03.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Gabrielle Jones, convicted of third-degree sodomy in 2001, was released from prison in 2005 and placed under a three-year period of conditional discharge required by KRS 532.043. After she violated the terms by using controlled substances and failing to complete required treatment and programs, the trial court revoked the discharge following a hearing. Jones appealed, arguing that the revocation proceedings should have been dismissed because the written sentencing judgment did not mention the conditional discharge. The court held that the statute imposes the discharge automatically as a matter of law upon conviction for qualifying sex offenses, without any need for the trial court to include it in the judgment. It therefore affirmed the revocation order.

criminal lawprocedure

In Allen v. Thomas, the Allens purchased 112 acres in Hopkins County, Kentucky, that included a dirt roadway leading from a highway to Clear Creek; after they installed gates and barriers to restrict access, William Thomas sued claiming that he and the general public had acquired a prescriptive easement through more than 15 years of open, adverse, and continuous use by hunters and fishermen. The trial court, relying on party stipulations, found such an easement existed and ordered the Allens to remove obstructions. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the stipulated facts did not establish use by the general public as a common way but rather sporadic use by a limited group for specific recreational purposes, which is insufficient under Kentucky law to create a public prescriptive easement. The court directed entry of judgment for the Allens, emphasizing that permission from the owners is required for such access.

property

The case involved William J. Barrow II, an LFUCG employee in the Department of Public Safety, who was suspended for three days without pay after refusing to answer questions about his job during an internal investigation into alleged improprieties, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Barrow appealed the suspension through the Civil Service Commission, which upheld it, and then to the Fayette Circuit Court, which dismissed his claims for reversal, injunction, and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as Lefkowitz v. Cunningham and Garrity v. New Jersey, public employees may be disciplined for refusing to answer employment-related questions if they are not required to waive immunity, which was preserved here through an offer of immunity from use in criminal proceedings. The court rejected arguments that the investigator lacked authority, that the disciplinary guidelines were improperly enacted, or that sovereign and qualified immunity did not apply to the defendants.

criminal lawlabor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Chris Monin, who was convicted in district court of driving under the influence and failing to wear a seatbelt after being stopped at a vehicle checkpoint operated by the Kentucky State Police. Monin moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the checkpoint was unconstitutionally established and maintained without proper authorization or adherence to state police guidelines. The district court denied the motion, and the circuit court affirmed the convictions. On discretionary review, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the checkpoint failed to meet constitutional standards under the Fourth Amendment and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution because there was no evidence of supervisory approval, media notice, a designated officer in charge, or a documented plan, rendering it an isolated stop rather than a valid checkpoint that limited officer discretion. As a result, the evidence obtained from the stop was inadmissible, and the convictions were overturned.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved an inmate, William Houston, who challenged prison disciplinary convictions for offenses including physical action against another inmate, loansharking, unauthorized property transfer, and possession of dangerous contraband, resulting in loss of good time credits and disciplinary segregation. Houston filed a petition for declaration of rights in circuit court after the warden denied his administrative appeals, but the petition lacked documentation verifying the grounds of three of his four appeals. The circuit court dismissed the petition for failure to show exhaustion of administrative remedies under KRS 454.415, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals court reviewed only the dangerous contraband claim on the merits, applying the "some evidence" standard from Superintendent v. Hill, and found that discovery of a razor in Houston's locker satisfied due process requirements. The court also rejected Houston's request for appointed counsel, citing Baxter v. Palmigiano.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In Davidson v. Castner-Knott Dry Goods Co., Inc., Taja Davidson sued Castner-Knott for malicious prosecution after the company caused criminal charges to be filed against her for passing a bad check, which were later dismissed without prejudice by the Commonwealth. The Warren Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Castner-Knott, finding that the dismissal did not constitute a termination of the proceedings in Davidson's favor. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed this decision and remanded the case, reasoning that a dismissal without prejudice can qualify as a favorable termination for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim when it reflects an abandonment of the prosecution rather than a mere procedural step, and that a grand jury indictment creates only a rebuttable presumption of probable cause.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a transportation services contract between ConAgra Poultry Company and Grissom Transportation, Inc., where ConAgra terminated the agreement early, leading Grissom to seek arbitration for unpaid amounts. The arbitrator awarded Grissom $101,605.41 and denied ConAgra's counterclaim, which the circuit court confirmed. ConAgra appealed, arguing the award resulted from legal errors and seeking to introduce evidence, but the court held that judicial review of arbitration awards is strictly limited to specific statutory grounds under the Kentucky Uniform Arbitration Act, none of which applied here. The appeals court affirmed the confirmation, noting that errors in law or fact by the arbitrator are not reviewable and that without a transcript, the award must be presumed supported by evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved landowners who sought to repurchase approximately eight acres of their property condemned by the Commonwealth for a highway project in 1979, claiming the state failed to develop it within eight years or provide required notice under KRS 416.670. After prior appeals established that the five-year statute of limitations was tolled due to lack of notice, the Martins amended their complaint to also seek monetary damages for lost use and income from the delay. The trial court denied further amendment and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that KRS 416.670 provides only a right to repurchase at the original condemnation price and does not authorize additional compensation or treat the delay as a separate compensable taking, as the state held fee simple title with no retained interest by the owners.

propertyprocedure