This is an Advertisement

Civil Litigation Blog

COAKY Decision Discusses Cost Award to Prevailing Party of a Daily “Allowance” For Trial Witnesses – And Even For a Party

In a December 2013 post, I blogged about the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ opinion in Bryan v. Correctcare-Integrated Health, 2012-CA-1500, which was not final at that time. In March 2014 the decision became final, and it was published in April at 420 S.W.3d 526 (Ky. App. 2013). The decision discussed a seldom-cited Kentucky statute, KRS ... Read More...
Posted in: Civil Litigation   | August 12, 2014

SCOKY Issues Additional Guidance for Permitting Juror to Pose Question to Trial Witness

Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 614(c) provides that a trial court may permit a juror to ask a question of a trial witness by submitting the question to the judge. The judge will then decide in his or her discretion whether to submit the question to the witness. Under KRE 614(d), any objections to a ... Read More...
Posted in: Civil Procedure   | June 24, 2014

SCOKY Questions Jeff. Co.’s Jury Selection Process, But Holds (Under Palpable Error Review Standard) It Was Not Reversible Error

In Oro-Jimenez v. Com., 412 S.W.3d 174 (Ky. 2013), the Kentucky Supreme Court considered a challenge in a criminal case to the voir dire process used in jury selection in Jefferson County. The Court described that process as involving questioning of the entire gallery of potential jurors summoned for the trial, with each side’s peremptory ... Read More...
Posted in: Civil Litigation,Civil Procedure   | May 7, 2014

SCOKY Holds Open and Obvious Hazard Doctrine Does Not Apply in Slip and Fall on Wet Floor Tile Near Store Entrance

The last post in this blog concerned the case of Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals and its limitation on the open and obvious hazard doctrine in a case involving a trip and fall by a hospital visitor who was tending to a hospitalized relative. In a companion decision rendered the same day as Shelton, the ... Read More...
Posted in: Civil Litigation,Civil Procedure   | April 24, 2014

SCOKY Retreats Further From Open And Obvious Hazard Doctrine In Premises Cases

In its recently published 4-3 opinion in Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013), the Kentucky Supreme Court expanded on its prior decision in Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010), limiting the “open and obvious hazard doctrine,” and held that a personal injury claim brought ... Read More...
Posted in: Civil Litigation,Civil Procedure   | April 9, 2014

Three-Day Mail Rule Under Kentucky and Federal Civil Rules

Confusion sometimes arises about when a litigant is entitled to the extra three days to act or respond under Kentucky CR 6.05 and its federal counterpart, FRCP 6(d), when another party serves the litigant by mail or e-mail. First, Kentucky’s amended Rule 6.05 (effective Jan. 1, 2014), provides that the extra three days that are afforded to a party when served by regular mail also apply when service is by e-mail or fax, even though such service is usually effectuated instantaneously. Read More...
Posted in: Civil Procedure   | March 25, 2014

Recent SCOKY Decision Suggests Kentucky Lawyers Should Be Cautious In Citing Unpublished Opinions

In a 2013 decision arising out of a probation revocation, the Kentucky Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Venters, commented on the fact that both parties had cited unpublished opinions that did not appear to meet the criteria of CR 76.28(4)(c). The Court stated that “as a general rule” the Court is not “greatly influenced by unpublished” appellate decisions. Read More...
Posted in: Civil Procedure   | March 4, 2014

Does The Federal Twombly/Iqbal Pleading Standard Apply To Affirmative Defenses In Federal Courts?

Our post last week discussed whether heightened federal pleading standards for stating a claim for relief apply in Kentucky state courts. Today's post deals with the issue whether those standards apply to affirmative defenses in federal court. Read More...
Posted in: Civil Procedure   | February 10, 2014

Have Kentucky Courts Adopted The Twombly/Iqbal Standard For Pleading A Claim For Relief?

Kentucky state courts have not yet formally adopted in a published opinion the federal pleading standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), to claims for relief. Those pleading standards are more rigorous than the traditional "notice pleading" standard that had long been followed in the federal courts prior to Twombly and Iqbal. Read More...
Posted in: Civil Procedure   | February 5, 2014

Recent COAKY Decision Discusses Award of Witness’s “Per Diem” Expense or “Allowance” as Recoverable Cost (including for Expert)

In a recent decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals that was designated for publication but is now pending on a petition for rehearing, the Kentucky Court of Appeals discussed a seldom used and infrequently cited statute that provides for an award to the prevailing party's of an "allowance" for trial witnesses, including both parties and experts, as a recoverable cost. Read More...
Posted in: Civil Procedure   | December 26, 2013

Article Categories:

About the Authors

David Kramer is a Partner at DBL Law and is Chair of the firm's Civil Litigation Section. He is the principal author of Thomson/West's two-volume treatise on the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. The treatise, which is updated annually, is widely regarded as the leading reference on the Kentucky civil rules.

Archives

  • 2014 (9)
  • 2013 (18)
  • 2012 (34)
  • 2011 (30)
  • 2010 (7)