James B. Milliken

The case involves a divorced father's obligation to pay child support for his two daughters following his ex-wife's request for increased payments after an initial 1962 settlement agreement. The court held that the father's support obligation extends until the children reach age twenty-one based on the agreement's reference to "infant" children when the age of majority was twenty-one, and that payments were allocated on a per-child basis. It allowed an increase in support for the younger child still under the age of majority but limited the older child to the previously agreed amount without further modification once she reached eighteen. The core reasoning focused on contract interpretation from the settlement agreement and the trial court's jurisdiction to modify support only for children below the statutory age of majority.

family law

The case involved property owners challenging a city ordinance rezoning a tract of land from commercial (C-D) to residential (R-3) use after the city legislative body rejected the planning commission's recommendation to retain the commercial classification. The circuit court upheld the ordinance, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the rezoning was arbitrary because the city legislative body made no findings of adjudicative facts as required when deviating from the commission's recommendation. The core reasoning was that constitutional due process, as established in prior precedent, mandates that such legislative zoning actions be supported by findings drawn from a trial-type hearing record.

property

This case centered on the enforceability of a restrictive covenant in a physician's employment contract with the Daniel Boone Clinic. Dr. Mary A. Hall, after working at the clinic under a one-year contract, sought to resign and establish a competing practice in McDowell, Kentucky, prompting the clinic to seek an injunction against her breach of the non-compete clause prohibiting practice within a fifty-mile radius for one year. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the chancellor's permanent injunction enforcing the covenant. The court held that the restriction was reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and purpose, consistent with precedent such as Lareau v. O'Nan, which recognized no overriding public policy against such agreements in professional employment absent serious inequities.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved James Earl Robinson's conviction for raping his sister-in-law Eva McIntosh, with Robinson admitting to intercourse but claiming consent while Eva testified it was without consent; the sole issue at trial was consent. On appeal, Robinson challenged the admission of rebuttal testimony from Eva's sister Delcie Lewis regarding an alleged post-trial statement by Robinson admitting the rape, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the testimony constituted substantive evidence of guilt on the central issue of consent and should have been introduced during the Commonwealth's case-in-chief rather than in rebuttal, making its delayed introduction prejudicial under established precedents requiring proper foundation and timing for admissions. The court noted that Kentucky law permits a rape conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix if not inherently improbable but reserved ruling on evidentiary sufficiency here.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from the denial of an RCr 11.42 post-conviction motion filed by Quarles after he pleaded guilty to robbery (reduced from armed robbery) and received a five-year sentence. Quarles alleged ineffective assistance of counsel due to late appointment and inadequate preparation, coercion into pleading guilty, denial of the right to subpoena witnesses like Torian at the motion hearing, and a due process violation. The court affirmed the denial, reasoning that counsel had conducted an adequate investigation before recommending the plea to avoid a harsher sentence for armed robbery, the trial court had properly inquired into the voluntariness of the plea, the coercion claim was disproved, and the guilty plea waived other defenses; it also noted that the witness subpoena issue had not been raised below.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal from the denial without a hearing of a motion to vacate judgment under RCr 11.42, filed by an appellant serving a ten-year sentence after pleading guilty to a reduced robbery charge. The appellant argued that he lacked counsel during preliminary proceedings, was subjected to coercion, and received inadequate representation from his appointed attorney who failed to consult sufficiently or prepare a defense. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the guilty plea foreclosed review of preliminary issues and that the record refuted claims of insufficient consultation or preparation, as counsel had appeared timely, secured a continuance, and advised on the plea and jury waiver in exchange for a lighter sentence than the potential death penalty.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Rake's conviction for carrying a concealed deadly weapon, a revolver, under Kentucky law, with a maximum sentence imposed. On appeal, Rake challenged the admission of evidence identifying the gun as stolen from a recent robbery, arguing it was prejudicial by implicating him in another crime and that the jury should have considered only the conflicting testimony on whether the weapon was concealed. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was relevant to establish a motive for concealing the gun and that its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice. The trial judge had admonished the jury to consider the testimony only for credibility purposes, and the court found the officers' and witnesses' accounts far outweighed Rake's denial.

criminal lawguns

This case involved an appeal from the denial of a post-conviction motion under RCr 11.42 to vacate a guilty plea and ten-year sentence for violation of KRS 435.100, carnal knowledge of a child under sixteen. The appellant claimed his plea was involuntary because his attorney threatened a longer sentence and he expected probation, and he submitted an affidavit from the victim recanting her testimony. The court affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that the record refuted claims of an involuntary plea, that an attorney may properly advise a guilty plea in good faith to obtain a lighter sentence, and that recantation affidavits or allegations of perjured testimony do not provide grounds for relief under RCr 11.42 when other incriminating evidence existed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate a voluntary manslaughter conviction, where the appellant argued that retrying him on a murder charge after his first trial resulted in a manslaughter conviction violated double jeopardy protections. The court considered precedents like Green v. United States and Benton v. Maryland, which extend double jeopardy rules to state proceedings, but ultimately affirmed the denial because the appellant failed to raise a double jeopardy plea at trial or on direct appeal as required by state procedural rules. The court noted that the appellant was convicted of the same lesser offense in both trials and rejected claims of prejudice from the murder charge being available to the jury. It also declined to retroactively apply new constitutional standards in this procedural context.

criminal lawprocedure

In Scott v. Scott, the mother Ruby Scott filed a habeas corpus action to regain immediate possession of her two children from their paternal grandparents after the grandparents refused to return the children following the father's death. The grandparents filed a counterclaim seeking permanent custody based on the children's best interests and sought to introduce related evidence, but the trial court limited the proceeding to the issue of immediate possession and awarded the children to the mother. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that habeas corpus proceedings are a special statutory remedy confined to determining the right to immediate possession and cannot be converted into an equity suit for permanent custody through counterclaims or other pleadings. The court reasoned that allowing such expansion would permit wrongdoers to benefit from unlawful takings and that permanent custody questions must instead be litigated separately in equity, with safeguards available if a child faces immediate harm. Concurring opinions agreed with the result but questioned the strict procedural limits on using habeas corpus for custody matters.

family lawprocedure

The case involved the convictions of John Thurman Johnson and James Lee Humphrey for grand larceny after they were found with keys and small change from robbed vending machines. A state trooper stopped their car based on a radio description, arrested them initially for lacking a vehicle registration receipt, and later obtained a search warrant for their automobile after finding some keys on one defendant. The court held that while the initial stop was supported by probable cause, the affidavit supporting the search warrant was purely conclusory and failed to provide sufficient underlying facts to establish probable cause, rendering the search illegal under Kentucky precedents and federal standards like those in Ventresca. As a result, the evidence obtained was inadmissible, and the convictions were reversed for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved material suppliers who furnished goods to a subcontractor on a municipal housing project and sought payment from the prime contractor's performance and payment bond after the subcontractor defaulted. The trial court granted summary judgment against the suppliers, limiting bond protection to the housing commission and materials supplied directly to the prime contractor. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the bond's language expressly extended coverage to all persons furnishing materials under the contract, including those dealing with subcontractors, and treated the suppliers as third-party beneficiaries. The court reasoned that the bond secured payment for work and materials on the project without restriction to direct contractors and, if ambiguous, would be construed against the compensated surety. The case was remanded for proof on the claims' authenticity, noting separate lien remedies under KRS 376.210 were not fully pursued.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved an insurance company's attempt to rescind two nonmedical accident and health policies after the insured suffered a disabling stroke, on the ground that the application falsely stated the insured had never had heart disease, high blood pressure, or diabetes. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insured based on depositions showing the insured had disclosed his conditions to the company's agent, who completed the application with negative answers. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that under KRS 304.656 statements in an application are representations rather than warranties, any inaccuracy originated with the agent rather than the insured, and the insured's disclosures and authorization for the insurer to obtain medical records precluded a finding of material misrepresentation or fraud by the applicant.

business & regulatory

The case involved James Harris Collins's 1968 post-conviction motion under RCr 11.42 to vacate his 1964 life sentence for armed robbery, claiming four grounds for relief: prejudicial pretrial publicity from a newspaper account of a confession, improper separation of the jury in a capital case, arraignment without counsel, and sentencing without counsel. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. The court rejected the publicity claim because the facts alleged were insufficient under precedents like Sheppard v. Maxwell and because voir dire was presumed to have ensured an impartial jury. It upheld the jury separation based on the parties' written agreement as permitted by RCr 9.66. The arraignment and sentencing claims were dismissed as the record showed counsel's presence at the relevant plea and trial stages, and those proceedings were not critical stages affecting substantial rights under Kentucky procedure or cases like Mempa v. Rhay and Hamilton v. Alabama.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved D. & J. Leasing, which purchased coke trailers from Hercules Galion Products and later sued for breach of warranty in McCracken Circuit Court, a venue both parties later agreed was improper. After the statute of limitations expired, D. & J. moved to dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, then refiled in Jefferson Circuit Court within ninety days; the trial court granted summary judgment to Hercules on limitations grounds, ruling that the voluntary dismissal barred application of the saving periods in KRS 413.270 and KRS 355.2-725. The appellate court reversed, holding that the dismissal was not a voluntary discontinuance or failure to prosecute within the meaning of the statutes, but rather a necessary step to obtain a proper forum, so the saving periods applied and the refiling was timely under either provision.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by William Gerald Coomes, a truck driver and lumber yard employee for Robertson Lumber Company, who suffered a severe skull fracture on the job in September 1964. No one witnessed the incident, which occurred while Coomes was unloading two-by-fours, and there was no clear evidence of whether he fell or was struck by lumber. The Workmen's Compensation Board denied benefits, finding insufficient proof of a causal connection to his employment, and the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that an unexplained injury occurring on the employer's premises during work gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of compensability under Kentucky's workers' compensation law, which must be liberally construed. The case was remanded for an award covering temporary total disability and potential permanent disability.

labor & employment

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim by Willis Adams, a coal miner totally disabled by a January 1966 back injury at Ricky Coal Company, where the company sought to apportion part of the award to the Special Fund due to Adams' pre-existing psychiatric condition. The Workmen's Compensation Board and Letcher Circuit Court held the employer fully liable, but the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Special Fund must share liability. The court reasoned that psychiatric testimony established Adams suffered from conversion hysteria—a dormant, disease-like condition aroused into disabling reality by the trauma—based on his history of abnormal reactions to prior injuries and medical evidence linking the conditions, consistent with precedents recognizing aggravated neuroses as compensable.

labor & employment

This case involved a claim by Priscilla Harp against her father's auto insurance policy for injuries sustained in a 1962 accident while her husband was driving the car with permission. The insurer denied coverage under a family exclusion clause barring claims for bodily injury to any member of the family of an insured who resides in the same household. The trial court granted summary judgment to Priscilla after a jury awarded her damages against her husband and father, but the appellate court reversed and directed judgment for the insurer. The court reasoned that the husband qualified as an additional insured under the policy, Priscilla was a resident member of his household, the exclusion was valid to prevent collusive claims, and the insurer had preserved its defense via a timely non-waiver agreement with the named insured.

torts & liabilityfamily law

This case arose from a lawsuit by the Trustees of the Benton Church of Christ against Jackson & Church Division and Hoe Supply Company for smoke damage allegedly caused by a defective furnace part. Jackson & Church filed a third-party complaint seeking to implead Miller Plumbing & Heating Company and Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company as installer and manufacturer of the part, for purposes of contribution or indemnity. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint based on prior case law requiring a judgment to be satisfied before such claims could be pursued. The appellate court reversed, holding that CR 14.01 permits a defendant to assert third-party claims against persons who may be liable before any judgment is rendered, though actual recovery remains contingent on a paid judgment, and the decision to allow impleader rests in the trial court's discretion to avoid complicating the case.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal by Charles Edward Thomas from his convictions for voluntary manslaughter and as a habitual criminal, stemming from a 1965 knife fight in which he fatally stabbed William Boyd Reynolds. Thomas challenged the admission of evidence regarding his prior felony convictions during the trial on the substantive charge, the sufficiency of evidence to overcome his self-defense claim, the use of dying declarations, and various procedural matters including jury instructions and sentencing under Kentucky's Habitual Criminal Act. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that prior convictions could be introduced in a single trial consistent with due process, that circumstantial evidence supported the verdict despite the self-defense assertion, that any errors regarding dying declarations or other issues caused no prejudice, and that the instructions and sentencing procedures were adequate when viewed as a whole.

criminal lawprocedure