Click here for link to table of all monthly oral argument calendars at Kentucky’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) from 2005 to date.
Click here for a link to all of the Kentucky Court Report’s postings on Supreme Court argument calendars.
Click here to catch live web streaming oral arguments on the date and time of the argument. They are not saved for later viewing.
* “Whistleblower Act. Issues involve evidentiary sufficiency to support a jury verdict for violation of the Kentucky Whistleblower Act.”
* “Qualified Immunity. Summary Judgment. Negligence. Slip and Fall. The issue is whether Court of Appeals’ analysis usurped the role of the jury, in deciding the issue of negligence on this interlocutory appeal, when the trial court denied a motion for summary judgment and determined that qualified immunity did not apply to these circumstances, but had not yet addressed the issue of negligence of school employees.”
* “Criminal Law. RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02. Issues involve application of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) to a 1998 sentence of life without parole for crimes including multiple murders committed before the offender’s 18th birthday.”
* “Torts. Punitive Damages. Issues include the propriety of the Court of Appeals panel’s remittitur of $60 million of the $80 million awarded in punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages of $19.315 million for fraudulent and grossly negligent tax and accounting services. Issues presented in the cross-motion concern the compensatory damages award as well as the punitive damages.”
* “Contract. Quantum Meruit. Unclean Hands. Federal HUBZone Program. Issues include whether a subcontractor who allegedly performed more work than allowed on a bridge construction project governed by the Federal HUBZone Program may recover for the value of that work from the prime contractor under quantum meruit.”
* “Products Liability. Medical Malpractice. Federal Preemption. Off-Label Use of Medical Devices. Informed Consent. Hospital Standard of Care. An issue of first impression in Kentucky is whether the trial court properly dismissed the state products liability claims against the hospital on the basis of express federal preemption in circumstances involving the off-label use of a medical device. Another issue is the standard of care applicable to the hospital when a medical device is being used off-label. Did the Court of Appeals err when it determined that the hospital had a duty to inform the patient of the regulatory status of the device and its off-label use and the risks attendant thereto?”