SCOKY Minutes for March 26, 2011 posted.
Decisions: 19-54
36 cases with 14 published
Click here for this month's minutes.
Click here for an index to all monthly minutes of SCOKY.
Please note that when you click on the actual mintues for this month that the announced decisions are are numbered sequentially beginning with those that are "To Be Published" 19-32 followed by those which are "Not To Be Published"33-54.
The published decisions list the parties to the case, the author of the opinion, the action taken (reversed etc), county of lower court, and the "question presented". This info should give you an idea of which ones you might wish to read which can be done by "clicking" on the hot link of the case number.
Following the decisions, you will see orders announced which cover a multitude of areas and then bar disciplinary actions. After that are MDRs granted and denied, petitions etc.
Hope that helps.
BTW, you will see some of the formatting runon stuff when I copied some of the text.
Some civil cases that I thought might be interesting or noteworthy are:
22. JOSEPH FISCHER, ET AL. V. JOHN R. FISCHER, SUCCESSOR EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN FISCHER
TO BE PUBLISHED
2009-SC-000245-DG JEFFERSON
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
JUSTICE NOBLE –
AFFIRMING
SCHRODER AND SCOTT, JJ.,
CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY.
Questions Presented:
Preservation. Contract Law. Issues include whether Court of Appeals' reversal of jury verdict was appropriate where the grounds for reversal were not raised in the trial court.
24.
GERALD S. HINNERS V. BRAD ROBEY, D/B/A/ ROBEY’S PAWN WORLD
2009-SC-000389-DG KENTONTO BE PUBLISHED
Questions Presented:
Personal Jurisdiction. eBay. The issue is whether a seller – located in another state – who sells a product to a buyer in Kentucky through eBay has significant contacts with the state to establish personal jurisdiction when the buyer sues for fraud and defective product.
29. VELESSA HATHAWAY V. AUDRA J. ECKERLE (JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT) AND COMMONWEALTH DODGE, LLC
TO BE PUBLISHED
2010-SC-000457-MR JEFFERSON
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
JUSTICE VENTERS –
AFFIRMING
ALL SITTING. ALL CONCUR
Questions Presented:
Arbitration clause in vehicle purchase agreement. Jurisdiction. Revocation.
30. CAESARS RIVERBOAT CASINO, LLC, ET AL. V. TO CARLA BEACH
TO BE PUBLISHED
2009-SC-000634-DG SHELBY
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS – REVERSING
ALL SITTING. ALL CONCUR.
Questions Presented:
Personal Jurisdiction. Minimum Contacts. The issue is whether Kentucky long-arm personal jurisdiction extends to include out-of-state casino corporations, in whose Indiana restaurant buffet line a frequent patron from Kentucky suffered injury after allegedly slipping on butter and falling to the floor.
NONPUBLISHED CASES
46. TAYLOR BANKS V. HON. BARRY L. WILLETT, JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, DIVISION ONE AND JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
2010-SC-000484-MR JEFFERSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT – AFFIRMING
ABRAMSON, J., ALSO CONCURS WITH THE MAJORITY OPINION FOR THE
REASON THAT APPELLANT BANKS HAS NOT MET THE COURT’S STANDARD
REQUIRING “NO ADEQUATE REMEDY BY APPEAL” AND DEMONSTRATION OF
“IRREPARABLE INJURY” AND IS COMPELLED TO REITERATE THAT THESE CONSTITUTE THE GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF THE WRIT, NOT ANY
DETERMINATION REGARDING THE LEGAL SOUNDNESS OF THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER.
Appellant, Taylor Banks, and the real-party-in-interest, James Williams, Jr.,were involved in a car accident in February of 2009 ..Williams suffered
severe injuries and sought damages for permanent impairment, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost wages. He filed suit against Banks in Jefferson Circuit Court .
As discovery progressed, Banks requested a defense-sponsored physical examination ofWilliams pursuant toCR 35.01. Banks secured Dr.Martin G . Schiller to perform the examination . Over the objections of Banks, Williams successfully moved the trial court to establish conditions under which the examination could be conducted and also requested that the exam be
videotaped . The trial court's order granting Williams' motion stated, in pertinent part:
[T]heCR 35.01examofPlaintiff[shall]beconductedunderthefollowing conditions and guidelines :
1. The scope of the examination shall only be for the injuries claimed in this subject wreck and not any unrelated injuries;
2. This shall be a physical examination only and the Plaintiffshall not be questioned by the doctor or his staffregarding details of how the
wreck occurred, employment, or other areas outside specific questions about her (sic) physical injury;
3 . The Plaintiff shall not be required to produce any documentation or diagnostic test results;
4. Any testimony or report from the Defendant's expert physician(s) shall be limited in scope to Plaintiffs injury from the wreck and shall only be within the scope of his professional specialty;
5 . The doctor's failure to produce any and all financial information properly requested under the law of Commonwealth of Kentucky shall prohibit his right to testify at trial.
Banks moved the trial court to reconsider and included with the motion a sworn response from Dr.Schiller. In his letter, Dr.Schiller declined to proceed with the examination under the guidelines imposed . He explained that the conditions would impair his ability to conduct a thorough and effective examination and would violate the standards of practice set forth by the American Medical Association . The trial court denied the motion .
Banks then moved the Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition, arguing
that the trial court was acting erroneously, though within itsjurisdiction. The
Court of Appeals denied the motion, determining that Banks failed to meet the thresholdrequirementsforthegrantingofawrit.Thatis,Banksfailedto
demonstrate that he lacked an adequate remedy by appeal and that irreparable injury would result. He now appeals to this Court .
In this case, the trial court's order limits discovery and does not involve thepotentialdisclosureofprivilegedinformation.When,andif,anadverse finaljudgment isrendered in this case, Banks willhave the normal and usual avenues of appeal available to him . As such, we find no error in the Court of Appeals' conclusion that Banks failed to satisfy this threshold requirement. Further, Banks has not satisfied his burden in demonstrating irreparable injury.
