Here is a link to the indexed minutes for the Supreme Court of Kentucky at their official web site.
Here is link to the Kentucky Court Report’s archived minutes for the Supreme Court.
This month’s minutes of the published and not to be published decisions, disciplinary matters, discretionary reviews granted and denied, petitions for hearing requested and denied, and more.
Selected published decisions.
1.Judicial conduct. Campaign conduct.
In Re. Robert A. Winter, Jr., Plaintiff and Cameron Blaue and Hon. Allison Jones, Intervening Plaintiffs
vs.
Hon. Stephen D. Wolnitzek, Chair Judicial Conduct Commission
Supreme Court of Kentucky Published Opinion Certifying the Law
Questions Presented: Certification of the Law. Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct. Campaign Conduct. Canon 5A(1)(a), Canon 5A(1)(b), and Canon 5B(1)(c).
Judicial candidates may “affiliate,” that is “portray” themselves as members of a political party without restriction; what they may not do under Canon 5A(1)(b), in tandem with Canon 5B(1)(c), is portray themselves, either directly or by implication, as the official nominee of a political party.
The Canon 5 provision proscribing “campaigning as a member of a political organization” prohibits the dissemination of campaign materials and other public representations suggesting to the voters that the candidate is the endorsed judicial nominee of a political party.
The statement “I am the only Republican candidate for Judge” is permissible, as long as it is true, because the message merely identifies the candidate as a Republican who is a candidate for judge, albeit the only one. It does not imply that the candidate is the nominee of the Republican Party, which would be prohibited.
The statement “I am the Conservative Republican candidate for Judge,” transmits the message that the candidate is the formal nominee for the Republican Party. As discussed above, this is an impermissible depiction by the candidate of his status in the judicial race; the insertion of the modifier “Conservative” into the statement does not, in our view, dispel the disingenuousness of the statement.
The statement by a candidate that his opponent is “the Democrat candidate for Judge” is an impermissible message to the voters. His opponent is not, in fact, the Democrat candidate for Judge. As previously explained, such candidates do not exist in Kentucky, and such a campaign message would therefore amount to a blatant falsehood.
A statement by a candidate that his opponent is “the Liberal Democrat for Judge” is likewise impermissible. For the identical reasons discussed above, the modern Democratic Party is widely acknowledged as falling within the liberal segment of the political spectrum. There is no meaningful difference between stating that someone is “the Liberal Democrat for Judge” as opposed to “the Democrat for Judge.” Both phrasings imply the false and misleading message that the opponent is the Democratic Party nominee for judge.
Canon 5B(1)(c) extends only to statements made during a campaign which are objectively factually untrue and do not extend to expressions of subjective opinions or innocuous campaign-trail “puffing” (“I am the most qualified candidate in the state.”).
In contrast, when an incumbent judge uses the word “re-elect” as campaign stratagem to persuade the public that she acquired the office by the popular vote of the people rather than as the appointee of a governor, its use is calculated to mislead and deceive the voters.
2. Postponing civil discovery pending criminal prosecution.
Allen Lloyd Lehmann vs. Hon. Susan Schultz Gibson
Supreme Court of Kentucky Published Opinion affirming and denying writ of mandamus
Questions Presented: Writ of Mandamus. Mootness. Trial court did not act erroneously in staying discovery in a civil action against a pastor pending conclusion of a related criminal prosecution for sex offenses.
7. Employment Law. Discrimination. Retaliation. Futile Gesture Doctrine. Appeal.
Norton Healthcare, Inc vs. Lual A. Deng
Supreme Court of Kentucky Published Opinion Reversing decision by the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s summary judgment because the Court of Appeals overreached by injecting the futile-doctrine theory on it’s own motion and trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Norton as a matter of law.
Questions Presented: Employment Law. Discrimination. Retaliation. Summary judgment was properly granted dismissing a post-termination retaliation claim. “Futile-gesture doctrine” was not raised in or decided by the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. KRE 408 does not exclude statements verbalizing parties’ demands.
10. Practice of Law. Unbundling of legal services.
Persel & Associates, LLC vs. Capital One Bank
Supreme Court of Kentucky Published Opinion reversing and remanding
Questions Presented: Limited-representation agreements. “Unbundling” of legal services. Such agreements are permissible so long as they are reasonable under the circumstances and otherwise comport with our rules of practice and procedure.
[gview file=”https://kycourtreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MNT022016.pdf”]
