The Kentucky Court of Appeals announced 23 decisions on Sept. 5, 2014, with one case published (criminal law). Our tort report of decisions of interest to Louisville and Kentucky injury attorneys dealing with torts, insurance and civil procedure include: malicious prosecution and applicability of governmental immunities available to arrest by state trooper; and setting aside default judgment when shown no service and thus no jurisdiction on named defendant (wife not count!).
There was one published case:
802. Criminal Law; Search and Seizure
Brandon Spann vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky
“Continue reading” for the Tort Report and a complete copy of this week’s minutes of ALL decisions with links to their full text.
The Tort Report – Selected decisions this week on tort, insurance and civil law (continue reading).
812. Malicious Prosecution and immunity defenses with regard to state trooper
Jason Palmer vs. Paul Carter, Sr.
COA Not Published; 9/5/2014
MOORE, JUDGE: Jason Palmer appeals a decision of the Fayette Circuit Court denying him summary judgment on a claim of malicious prosecution that was filed against him by appellee, Paul Carter, Sr. Upon review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
In conclusion, the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court is AFFIRMED to the extent that it determined that qualified immunity does not apply to Carter’s malicious prosecution claim against Palmer. It is REVERSED to the extent that it found any statement given by Palmer over the course of the preliminary hearing, grand jury hearing, or suppression hearing to supply any basis for Carter’s malicious prosecution claim. We REMAND for further proceedings otherwise consistent with this opinion.
816. Civil Procedure. Default Judgment
Donald Snider vs. Terry McIntosh
COA Not Published 9/5/2014
APERTON, JUDGE: Donald Snider, Jr. appeals the trial court’s entry of a default judgment against him and the corresponding order granting damages to Terry McIntosh. Snider argues that he was improperly served and, thus, the court erred in its calculation as to when his answer was due. We agree with Snider that service of the complaint to his wife was insufficient to bring Snider before the court; thus, the court erred in stating that Snider was required to file an answer within twenty days thereof. Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the circuit court for either a hearing, at the trial court’s discretion, to determine the date of service by the postal employee or, absent a hearing or sufficient proof at the hearing of the date of service, acceptance of the date of November 20th as the date of service.