Click HERE
for MAY 2010 oral argument calendar at Court of Appeals.
You
will note that no issues were listed under some of the cases below. The
reason is that the COA calendar did not list any issues either (and I
do not have access to the briefs etc).
Dates:
- May 4 (Frankfort); 11 & 17 (Louisville); 26 (Lexington)
LOCATION: COURT OF APPEALS COURTROOM, 360 DEMOCRAT DRIVE,
FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY
DATE: Tuesday, May 4, 2010
10:00 am
EVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC. v DONNA PING
Enforceability of ADR agreement.
10:45 AM A. C. v COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Palpable error review of juvenile case wherein Appellant alleges she was denied due process when she was not given notice that she appearing to answer charges of contempt and/or violation of probation and alleges that she was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Pending motion to dismiss by Commonwealth as moot because Appellant is no longer in the custody of the Cabinet.
11:30 AM
STONESTREET ENTITIES v BUCKRAM OAK HOLDINGS, N.V.
Contract case wherein Appellant alleges the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Claims on direct appeal include legal errors regarding the merger doctrine, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent omission, and civil conspiracy. Protective cross appeal involves claims of error regarding whether trial court should have granted dismissal for alleged discovery misconduct.
LOCATION: JEFFERSON COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER, 10TH FLOOR APPELLATE
COURTROOM, 700 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, LOUISVILLE,
DATE: Tuesday, May 11, 2010
11:00 AM
TERRY L. GOODMAN v MELISSA L. CRAIG
A 1995 Kentucky paternity judgment determined that appellant was the father of a female child. At age 18, after graduation from high school, the father moved to terminate child support. Family court denied the motion finding no jurisdiction because in 1996 the action had been transferred to Indiana.
11:45 AM
DON R WILKINS v GRACE WILKINS
2009-CA-000468 – Whether circuit court erred by setting aside a portion of a property settlement agreement as unconscionable.
2009-CA-000512 – Whether circuit court erred by not setting aside entire
property settlement agreement.
12:30 PM
SANDRA GRISSOM PHILLIPS v HIGHLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, INC.
Whether circuit court erred by finding that an easement appurtenant in the alley was
extinguished and appellee owns alley in fee simple. 2009-CA-000432 – Whether circuit court erred by not applying the merger doctrine.
LOCATION: JEFFERSON COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER, 10TH FLOOR APPELLATE
COURTROOM, 700 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, LOUISVILLE,
DATE: Monday, May 17, 2010
01:00 PM
REPUBLIC WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY v JOSEPH ANTHONY WEST
MOR appeal from jury verdict on claim of violation of unfair settlement claims act. Issues include whether all elements of claim were established; whether punitive damages were properly awarded; whether punitive damages were excessive; whether insurer was properly ordered to make payment; and, whether award of attorney’s fees was an abuse of discretion.
01:45 PM
TERESA SHEFFIELD v WILBER GRAVES
02:30 PM
VERONICA CANTRELL-MAY v BRENDEN M. WETHERTON
Whether circuit court erred by admitting into evidence the deposition of expert witness.
LOCATION: FAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, COURTROOM I, 4TH FLOOR,
120 NORTH LIMESTONE, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 2010
10:00 AM
KENTUCKY EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS COMMISSION v BETTY ATKINSON
County Government: whether executive branch ethics commission has jurisdiction over property valuation administrators.
10:45 AM
LEXINGTON – FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT v L.L. HANKS, JR. & SONS
LFUCG appeals from a district court order which awarded attorney fees after dismissal of a code enforcement violation citation. Whether proof of bad faith is necessary to support an equitable award of attorney fees. Adequacy of award.
11:30 AM
JAMES D. CARREER v CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
Carreer appeals from a circuit court order affirming the Personnel Board’s decision to uphold the Cabinet’s decision to transfer him to another division. Whether there was substantial evidence to support agency’s finding that transfer was justified and not a demotion or penalization; whether reorganization was properly implemented; authority o f Cabinet to order transfer; whether transfer effect of Carreer’s retirement on his claim; and due process issues.
