Select Page
Posted by Michael Stevens | Dec 24, 2010 | Standards of Review |
At the outset, we note that a motion for JNOV shall not be granted unless “there is a complete absence of proof on a material issue or if no disputed issues of fact exist upon which reasonable minds could differ.” Bierman v....
Read MorePosted by Michael Stevens | Dec 23, 2010 | Uncategorized |
Contract language,like statutory language, may be clear on its face and yet contain a latent ambiguity. Thornhill Baptist Church v.Smither, 273 S .W.2d 560, 567 (Ky. 1954);see also Carroll v.Cave Hill Cemetery Co., 172 Ky.204,...
Read MorePosted by Michael Stevens | Dec 21, 2010 | Standards of Review |
The construction and interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which requires de novo review in this Court. Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 294 S.W.3d 10, 19 (Ky. App. 2008); Bd. of Comm’rs of the City of...
Read MorePosted by Michael Stevens | Dec 20, 2010 | Standards of Review |
“On appellate review, the test of a directed verdict is, if under the evidence as a whole, it would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt, only then the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.”...
Read MorePosted by Michael Stevens | Dec 20, 2010 | Standards of Review |
Summary judgment is a stringent standard. It serves to terminate litigation where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that...
Read MoreThis website is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing the posts, contents and other information on this website, the reader understands there is no attorney-client relationship between the reader and the website/blog publisher and that it should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney.
Readers are urged to consult their own legal counsel on any specific legal questions concerning a specific situation.