Samuel S. Steinfeld

This case involved a dispute over a defective cooling system installed for Blue Grass Hams, Inc., a business engaged in quick-curing hams. Blue Grass sued Frantz, Inc., the mechanical contractor that supplied the system under an oral agreement based on specifications from an expert, after the system repeatedly froze up and ultimately failed. Frantz brought in additional parties, including Brock-McVey, the designer, and the jury returned a verdict holding Frantz and Brock-McVey jointly and severally liable to Blue Grass while allowing Frantz recovery from Brock-McVey. The court affirmed the judgment against Frantz, ruling that it qualified as a seller and merchant under Kentucky's UCC (KRS Chapter 355, Article 2) because it contracted to supply the goods and guaranteed its work, thereby implying it could meet the required temperature and humidity standards. Brock-McVey's appeal was dismissed because it was taken only from the denial of a post-verdict motion rather than from a final judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a condemnation action in which the Commonwealth took 4.19 acres of unimproved land from an 18.49-acre tract for a highway project, and a jury awarded the owners $200,000. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying a challenge for cause to a juror who was herself a defendant in a similar pending condemnation case on the same project, forcing the Commonwealth to use a peremptory challenge, and that the award was excessive and unsupported by evidence. The court held that denying the challenge was erroneous because the juror's involvement created bias, but reversal was not required absent a showing of prejudice, which the Commonwealth failed to establish since it did not demonstrate that the biased juror affected the verdict or that peremptory challenges were exhausted in a way that caused harm. The court also found the verdict supported by substantial evidence from multiple witnesses on the land's pre- and post-taking value, including for resort-commercial use, and therefore affirmed the judgment.

propertyprocedure

The case involved whether State Farm could enforce a subrogation clause in its auto policy after paying the Roarks $1,000 in medical expenses following their accident with an uninsured driver; the Roarks had settled their injury claims with the other insurer for $13,500 and sued State Farm to obtain the $1,000 draft and for punitive damages, claiming the insurers conspired to pressure their settlement. The trial court invalidated the subrogation provision and a jury awarded the Roarks $1 in compensatory damages plus $5,500 in punitive damages. On appeal the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that a medical-payments subrogation clause is valid under Kentucky law because it creates a lien on settlement proceeds rather than an assignment of an unliquidated personal-injury claim, and that no evidence supported a conspiracy or resulting damages to the Roarks.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves appeals by Brown Sharp from a divorce judgment and subsequent orders in Sharp v. Sharp, concerning the division of marital property, alimony (maintenance) payments to Sarah Sharp, attorney fees, court costs, and visitation rights after the dissolution-of-marriage act took effect. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rulings, including the award of $54,584 plus personal property to Mrs. Sharp, $200 monthly maintenance as long as she lives unmarried, and related fees and interest. The court reasoned that the trial court's findings on earnings, property values, debts, and maintenance standards under KRS 403.200 were not clearly erroneous, that additional evidence on post-divorce conduct was properly excluded or did not warrant modification under KRS 403.250, and that prior mandates from remand were followed without abuse of discretion.

family lawproperty

This case involved a dispute between Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. over which insurer was responsible for defending and indemnifying driver H.C. James after an accident while using a loaner vehicle from a repair shop. Both policies included 'other insurance' clauses attempting to limit or escape coverage when alternative collectible insurance existed, with State Farm providing primary coverage to James and Ohio Casualty issuing a garage liability policy to the shop. The trial court and Kentucky Supreme Court held that the conflicting escape clauses were mutually repugnant and irreconcilable, requiring both insurers to share liability equally up to the lower policy limit of $20,000, with State Farm covering any excess up to its higher limits. The core reasoning centered on the policies' identical attempts to defer primary responsibility, rendering pro-rata provisions inapplicable and mandating joint defense and indemnification obligations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Carrico v. City of Owensboro, a citizen, resident, property owner, and taxpayer sued to enjoin the city from implementing a Neighborhood Development Plan, arguing it violated a 1963 voter referendum that had halted prior urban renewal efforts, and seeking to block related federal grant requests. The trial court granted summary judgment against the plaintiff, finding the new plan sufficiently different from the old one and the referendum no longer binding. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing because he alleged no special or peculiar injury to himself, no expenditure of city funds as a taxpayer, and no statutory authorization allowing a citizen suit based solely on municipal residency. The court emphasized that private individuals generally must demonstrate damage distinct from that suffered by the public at large to challenge official acts via injunction.

procedure

The case involved two defendants convicted of grand larceny, with Steely Ray Hubbs, a juvenile, challenging the transfer of his case from juvenile court to circuit court on grounds that the waiver order lacked sufficient reasons, details of a hearing, and confirmation of counsel representation or compliance with statutory procedures. The court clarified that, consistent with Kent v. United States and KRS 208.170, either the waiver order, an accompanying statement, or the juvenile court record must demonstrate that a hearing occurred with counsel present and must provide specific reasons for the transfer to permit meaningful review. It remanded Hubbs' case for the trial court to verify compliance with these requirements using the juvenile court proceedings, with the judgment to be reinstated if compliant or deemed void otherwise. The court affirmed the conviction of the co-defendant Mays, finding no error in the failure to instruct on lesser offenses or intoxication as those issues were not preserved or supported by evidence. The topics addressed include criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the dissolution of the marriage of Jo Nell Tackett and Thomas J. Tackett, disputes over custody of their two children, paternity of the younger child, property division, and support obligations. The trial court dissolved the marriage, awarded each parent custody of one child, divided the marital property and vehicles, and declared Thomas not the father of T.J. Jr. based on blood-type information deemed admitted due to unanswered requests for admissions. The appellate court affirmed the property division and maintenance awards but remanded for a proper hearing on parentage, ruling that the presumption of legitimacy cannot be overcome by bare blood-type admissions without expert testimony establishing non-paternity under KRS 406.111 and that scientific conclusions require more than lay evidence.

family lawprocedureproperty

In Johnson v. Lohre, an employee injured at work and his wife sued a fellow employee and unknown equipment manufacturers/suppliers for damages from negligence, including loss of consortium. The trial court dismissed the complaint against the fellow employee based on affidavits showing both were covered by the workers' compensation act and against the unknown defendants on statute of limitations grounds. On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the claim against the fellow employee because the compensation law provided the exclusive remedy and barred suits against co-employees absent intentional injury, but reversed as to the unknown defendants because the statute of limitations defense was not properly raised by the fellow employee and the wife's independent consortium claim was not barred by the act.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether Continental Insurance Companies was obligated under a liability policy to cover judgments totaling $74,000 against its insured, nightclub owner Walter Simpson, arising from injuries sustained by three patrons in a fight involving Simpson's employees. The trial court ruled that Continental was liable for both compensatory and punitive damages, found multiple occurrences and bad faith by the insurer, and exceeded policy limits. On appeal, the court held that the punitive damages were covered because the jury instructions and verdict supported gross negligence rather than intentional conduct, that the incident constituted a single occurrence subject to the $50,000 per-occurrence limit, and that the insurer had not acted in bad faith regarding settlement, defense counsel conflicts, or appeal decisions. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings on remaining policy defenses such as timely notice and intentional acts.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Eviston v. Eviston, a divorce action, the trial court dissolved the marriage of David and Terry Eviston, divided their property, and awarded custody of their son (born in 1968) to the father. The mother appealed solely the custody determination. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the overriding consideration under KRS 403.270 is the best interest of the child and that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion, as the arrangement allowed the child to remain in his longtime home with his father and paternal grandparents. The court noted that custody remains subject to modification under KRS 403.340 if circumstances change.

family law

This case concerned the constitutionality of Kentucky's 1972 work release program for felony prisoners under KRS 439.580-439.630. The Attorney General sought to enjoin the program, arguing that KRS 439.600(1) and (4), which allowed temporary releases for visits and paid community employment, violated Section 253 of the Kentucky Constitution requiring most convict labor to occur inside penitentiary walls except for limited exceptions like public works. The circuit court upheld the program based on prior precedent, but on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that subsection (1) permitting limited visits did not violate the constitution as construed in George v. Lillard, while subsection (4) authorizing paid employment outside prison facilities exceeded the constitutional exceptions and was invalid. The decision rested on the text, history, and prior interpretations of Section 253, including its 1915 amendment, without regard to the program's policy merits.

criminal law

The case was a divorce appeal concerning the amounts awarded for child support and spousal maintenance, as well as the division of marital property between Jane and Preston Farmer after their 1962 marriage. The court affirmed the $160 monthly child support award for the daughter but reversed in part on maintenance and property division, remanding for further proceedings. It held that the trial court must first restore Jane's non-marital contributions (including $10,000 invested in the residence) under KRS 403.190 before reallocating marital property in just proportions and reassessing maintenance under KRS 403.200 based on the parties' financial resources and other statutory factors.

family lawproperty

The case involved developers of Bellemeade Subdivision seeking Planning Commission approval to construct a Holiday Inn motel on the twelve-acre Section V, which adjacent residential lot owners challenged on grounds that prior deed restrictions limited the land to one-family residential use only. The circuit court sided with the neighbors, voiding the commission's approvals under the reciprocal negative covenant doctrine and enjoining any commercial development. On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that no such covenants encumbered Section V because the recorded restrictions expressly applied only to Sections I-IV, earlier negotiations for commercial uses showed no uniform scheme across the entire tract, and the commission's review complied with applicable procedures even without final construction plans. The court dissolved the injunction and directed entry of judgment for the developers.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case challenged the validity of sections of the Webster County High School dress code that set maximum hair length requirements for male students and prohibited female students from wearing jeans. Students who violated the code were suspended, and they appealed after the circuit court upheld the regulations. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the dress code provisions were valid. It reasoned that regulations concerning student hair length and attire do not raise issues of constitutional dimensions, and that school authorities acted with sincerity in adopting the code.

civil rights

In Armco Steel Corporation v. Mullins, employee Vernon Mullins filed a workers' compensation claim after injuring his right knee on the job as a rigger, seeking temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits. The Workmen’s Compensation Board dismissed the Special Fund as a party and awarded Mullins 17 weeks of temporary total disability plus 20% permanent partial disability benefits for 383 weeks against his employer Armco; the Boyd Circuit Court affirmed the award. On appeal, Armco argued that Mullins had not sustained an injury of appreciable proportions to support permanent benefits. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence from multiple medical experts showing a probability of future impairment of earning capacity due to the injury’s nature and the employee’s age and job requirements.

labor & employment

In Roy v. Commonwealth, appellants Larry H. Roy and Donald Eugene Ault were convicted of escaping from a state penitentiary after being assigned as nurses in the prison hospital, where they claimed threats from other inmates to supply narcotics justified their escape under the defense of coercion and necessity. The trial court excluded testimony about a subsequent nurse's death and refused a jury instruction on duress. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants failed to show a present, imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm as required by precedent and did not properly preserve their claim of error regarding the excluded evidence through an avowal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Harold White, who was indicted and convicted by a jury on three counts of unlawfully selling narcotics under KRS 218.020, resulting in sentences of ten years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine per count. The court affirmed the convictions, rejecting claims of an impartial jury due to prior similar trials, insufficient proof of sale dates, unqualified witness testimony identifying heroin, and inadequate evidence for one count. Core reasoning included the trial judge's careful voir dire ensuring fairness, a witness's experience qualifying him to identify the drug, and prior inconsistent statements supporting the evidence, with no error in denying a directed verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Elaine Gray suing the City of Lexington for personal injuries and medical expenses after an off-duty police officer, Dan Brotherton, attempted to arrest her at her home for disorderly conduct, resulting in her sustaining injuries during the encounter. The city appealed a jury verdict awarding Gray damages, arguing there was no employer-employee relationship, that Brotherton was not acting within the scope of employment, and that the jury instructions were flawed. The court found an employment relationship existed and the officer's actions during the arrest fell within its scope, but reversed the judgment, holding that the interrogatory given to the jury was prejudicially erroneous because it improperly required a finding that force was justified under both self-defense and arrest standards rather than focusing solely on the force necessary to effect the arrest.

torts & liability

The case involved a divorce action filed before Kentucky's 1972 divorce law amendments, in which the wife sought a legal separation from bed and board while the husband counterclaimed for an absolute divorce. The trial court granted the wife a legal separation, custody of the two minor children, monthly child support, and $21,000 as her share of property that included a farm acquired before the marriage. On appeal, the court held that because the husband had objected to a legal separation and the marriage was found irretrievably broken, the trial court was required to enter a decree of dissolution rather than separation. The court further determined that the property division required reevaluation to identify any legally recognizable interest the wife held at the time of marriage and to distinguish increases due to joint efforts from those caused by general economic conditions, while affirming the custody and support provisions.

family lawproperty