Breckinridge County was formed in 1799 out of Hardin County and named in honor of the distinguished lawyer and statesman John Breckinridge from Virginia. The land was part of a grant from Virginia to Captain William Hardin by the King of England and signed by Patrick Henry. The document was on goat’s skin. The first courthouse was of log. Legend has it that when the first courthouse was destroyed that women and children secured the records in a cave under the town of Hardinsburg. The second courthouse was built in 1869 at a cost of $37,000 with bricks molded and fired on site (at the present County High School). Stone for this courthouse was quarried at Bennett’s Quarry near Irvington. This courthouse burned down in 1958, and was replaced in 1960 by the courthouse (bottom right picture) for $260,000. Some of the special features of this building are; two vaults that are fireproof and both are two stories tall, also the whole building is said to be completely fireproof.. The present judicial center (top picture) was dedicated in 2011. The total project cost for this 5th courthouse was $13.16 million.
One published decision. Judge Sean Delahanty and Judge Stephanie Burke vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky wherein a writ of prohibition was filed by the county attorney to keep the Drive Safe Louisville program open and running was granted by the circuit court and affirmed on appeal. However, the ruling continuing the Drive Safe Louisville program did not address the constitutionality of the statute.
In a not to be published decision Rose v. Wayne County, Kentucky, the Court of Appeals addressed immunity and the extent that supervision of prisoners was a discretionary act. Although there were previous decisions holding that supervision of prisoners is discretionary in nature, the COA easily distinguished them stating that the case sub juice was not based on “discretion” or “a judgment call.” But rather the prisoner was specifically placed in a detox cell by the jail, and thusly the jail undertook the duty they would comport with the regulations concerning monitoring of prisoners in such a cell.
COA DECISIONS DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION:
390. Writ of Prohibition. Drive Safe Louisville.
Judge Sean Delahanty and Judge Stephanie Burke vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Opinion Affirming Jefferson Circuit Court issuance of a writ of prohibition to continue the Drive Safe Louisville program but did not address the constitutionality of the statute.
Having carefully reviewed the record as well as the applicable legal authority, we are thoroughly convinced that the County Attorney met the requirements for the issuance of a writ. The Appellants’ actions in refusing to recognize the validity of the DSL program are without current justification. To date, the constitutionality of the DSL program and its authorizing statute have not been challenged by any person with legal standing and have not been litigated in accordance with our notions of due process. The procedural posture created by Judge Delahanty left the County Attorney without an adequate remedy by appeal. In the absence of relief, the County Attorney will not be able to administer the DSL program in accordance with his authority as defined by our General Assembly and thousands of individuals will be deprived of the right to participate in a traffic safety program that the General Assembly decided would serve the public interest.
In the absence of relief, the County Attorney, the citizens of this Commonwealth, and our system of justice would suffer great harm and injustice. Thus, we are confident that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the writ of prohibition.
We affirm the Jefferson Circuit Court’s decision issuing a Writ of Prohibition.
Selected cases that were not designated for publication in tort, insurance and civil law.
392. Governmental immunity. Supervision of prisoners placed in detox cell.
Rose v. Wayne County, Kentucky
Opinion Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding. Wayne Cir Ct
Appellees cite to cases where the courts have previously ruled that supervision of prisoners is discretionary in nature, but those cases are easily distinguished from the case at bar. In the instant matter, the required supervision of Rose was not based on “discretion” or “a judgment call.” Rose was specifically placed in a detox cell by the jail, and when they placed Rose in that detox cell, they undertook that they would comport with the regulations concerning monitoring of prisoners in such a cell. 501 KAR 3:060 Section 2(2)(c) explicitly states that “[j]ail personnel shall conduct and document direct in-person surveillance on an irregular schedule, at least every twenty (20) minutes on [prisoners in a detox cell].” There is no wiggle room or added discretion afforded to jail workers in such a situation. The jail log indicates this supervision provision was not fulfilled, the supervision was ministerial in nature, hence Appellees are not entitled to qualified official immunity in their individual capacities in this matter, and we reverse the court order on this issue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You will find the complete list of this week’s decisions below with number, names of parties, case number, lower court (eg., county), etc. with a hot link to the full text of the decision (published and not to be published). See explanatory note following PDF of the decisions below.
NOTE: You will have to check Case Information for each decision for finality (if not already marked on first page of decision after publication), amendments, rehearing, or other matters including motions for discretionary review (MDR) filed with the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Click Court of Appeals Minutes for entire listing of weekly minutes.
All decisions regardless of publication are posted and can be read, but those decisions designated not for publication cannot be cited as legal authority. See, KRCP 76.28(4)(c)(“Opinions that are not to be published shall not be cited or used as binding precedent in any other case in any court of this state; however, unpublished Kentucky appellate decisions, rendered after January 1, 2003, may be cited for consideration by the court if there is no published opinion that would adequately address the issue before the court. Opinions cited for consideration by the court shall be set out as an unpublished decision in the filed document and a copy of the entire decision shall be tendered along with the document to the court and all parties to the action.”)
