The judgment sustaining demurrers to the claims as against these defendants is affirmed.
Felony Assault in Kentucky
Accordingly, the decision below is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the law enforcement defendants is reversed. Any other construction would render most of the operative language meaningless.
The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matters are remanded for further proceedings. The judgment of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to the declaratory relief count of the complaint and sustaining its plea in bar and granting its motion for summary judgment as to two other counts is affirmed. In this statute, the General Assembly has determined that a person who commits the acts proscribed and does so unlawfully but not maliciously, causing a death, is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Thus, this defendant was twice punished in the same trial of the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the case is remanded for the Commonwealth to elect between the convictions.
The statutory language is plain and unambiguous, proscribing the act of discharging a firearm within an occupied building in such a manner as to endanger the life of a person therein. The statute distinguishes between several levels of the offense and subjects them to punishments that differ according to the mens rea of the offender and the resulting harm. Further, subsection A 3 does not state that it governs all purchases of electricity by large customers from competitive service providers.
Accordingly, customers who satisfy the size requirements of subsection A 3 can purchase electricity from a competitive provider under subsection A 5 , provided that they satisfy the separate conditions of subsection A 5. The order of the State Corporation Commission is affirmed. However, it erred by holding that the Illinois holding company must be the entity that pays this tax for the exception to apply.
Zanda Myers | Kentuckians For The Commonwealth
Thus, the petition is dismissed. While the trial court set the verdict aside on the grounds of contributory negligence by the decedent, the judgment is affirmed on the alternate basis that plaintiff failed as a matter of law to establish that the design is unreasonably dangerous. The conviction is affirmed. The facts underlying the arrest are irrelevant and the petitioner need not show actual prejudice to prevail on her expungement petition.
She needs only to demonstrate that the continued existence of an arrest record may cause a manifest injustice. On this record, there is a reasonable possibility that a felony arrest record would hinder her career and her educational opportunities. It is concluded that the petitioner made the requisite showing of a manifest injustice. The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for entry of an order expunging the felony arrest record at issue.
It was an abuse of discretion to disqualify this witness from testifying, and the subsequent entry of summary judgment for the defense was error. The judgment is reversed and the action is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If any of those circumstances are present, the court must deny the petition.
However, even when those circumstances are absent, the court is not required to grant the petition and retains broad discretion in ruling on the petition. The judgment denying the petition is affirmed. The circuit court should have granted the defense motion to strike the evidence on the basis of lack of causation. The judgment of the circuit court implementing a jury verdict for plaintiff is reversed and final judgment is entered on this appeal for the defendants.
Under Rule a , a final judgment forecloses successive litigation of the same claim, but claim preclusion will not bar a claim that does not accrue prior to the litigation triggering the bar. Thus, the present cause of action had not accrued, and claim preclusion cannot bar it now. Issue preclusion bars relitigation of common factual issues between the same or related parties, but the issue must have been actually litigated and essential to a valid and final personal judgment in the first action and here it is not certain that the issues were actually litigated and decided by the court.
Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine intended to prevent litigants from adopting a position inconsistent with a stance taken in a prior litigation.
Thomas B. Wine – Jefferson County, Kentucky
Further, the court did not rely upon his assertions in rendering its decision in the prior case. Thus, judicial estoppel does not apply.
- Kentucky Jury Duty/ Court Appearance: What you need to know.
- Kentucky indictments?
- Jur-E Bulletin | National Center for State Courts!
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further circuit court proceedings. In this case, there was no final order entered regarding the claim that ex-husband is attempting to preclude by his assertion of res judicata. The rule to show cause issued on February 7, is discharged. Therefore, the circuit court erred in dismissing this case on the ground that plaintiff did not timely file his notice of tort claim. In addition, an adverse inference instruction for spoliation of evidence is proper only where the party has acted in bad faith or with intentional conduct calculated to suppress the truth, which was not shown in this case.
Certain testimony of a city code inspector must be excluded in any retrial as lacking in relevancy. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the claims of the most severely injured plaintiff from those of the other three plaintiffs, but it was error to permit amendment of the ad damnum clauses of three plaintiffs after completion of all of the evidence.
The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for a new trial. The ultimate issues of fact in a prior larceny trial, in which the defendant was acquitted, were different from those in the present perjury trial. Thus, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in finding the Commonwealth was not collaterally estopped from bringing the indictment for perjury.
The evidence, including circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to support a finding of guilt on the required elements of the perjury offense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not claim the delay in any way prejudiced his defense of the SVPA petition. The implied consent law also does not violate the Virginia Constitution. Latitude Properties, Inc.
The judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment and enforcing liens upon the potential income tax refunds of debtors is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Final judgment upholding the conviction in this case is entered.
The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered on this appeal. Judicial estoppel is not an affirmative defense that is waived if not pled, thus it was not waived by the failure of the defamation defendants to raise it in their pleadings, and the circuit court had the authority to raise and apply the doctrine sua sponte.
The judgment dismissing this action on summary judgment is affirmed. The existence of a confidential relationship is insufficient, alone, to establish the second element. It must be accompanied by activity on the part of the dominant person in procuring or preparing the will in his favor before a presumption of undue influence will arise. In this case, the brother is not a beneficiary under either the will or the trust, and neither his entitlement to compensation as executor and trustee, nor his power as trustee to choose beneficiaries of certain trust property make him a beneficiary.
Bail jumping ky
The uncertain and contingent possibility that the brother might divert and distribute trust property to himself does not make him a beneficiary. This doctrine, however, does not compel positive action by the promisor to bring about the performance of the condition. Thus, the duty of a vendor to a broker is fulfilled by remaining passive and neutral; the condition, upon which the payment of commissions is made to depend, is waived only where the vendor is active to prevent or hinder its performance. Recovery of damages for preventing the performance of a condition also requires proof of causation.
In this case, evidence was absent that the seller wrongfully prevented satisfaction of the contractual closing condition in excess of its legal rights. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for the defendant seller on this appeal.
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney
That determination is reversed, and the case is remanded for consideration of all remaining issues. The judgment denying permission to proceed in forma pauperis is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The operative agreements constituting an assumption reinsurance transaction did not provide a contractual basis for the claims for legal fees and costs.
The judgment of the Commission is affirmed. Strip searches of inmates and detainees will not violate the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable in light of institutional security interests. Nor did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for possession of drugs with intent to distribute.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered upholding the conviction. The appeal in the mandamus proceeding is dismissed. The judgment of the circuit court with respect to the stay and injunctive relief is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The public policy of Virginia has been to uphold the validity of the marriage status as for the best interest of society, and the presumption of the validity of a marriage is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law.
Nor does any provision of the Code limit solemnization only to a ceremony. Even if the courts were to infer a particular sequence for the license and solemnization requirements, a violation of that judicially implied requirement would not render the parties' marriage either void ab initio or voidable. The marriage was valid and the circuit court, therefore, had authority to distribute the marital assets consistent with the marital agreement and to continue its adjudication of the divorce proceeding.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the matter is remanded to that court for remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. They serve to assist the circuit court, not to supplant it. Their work is subject to review by the circuit court, which may accept or reject it, in whole or in part. Commissioners are not lower tribunals from which appeals are taken. In this case, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case and its decisions are reviewed, not those of the commissioner of accounts.
However, it was error to grant summary judgment on the fraudulent conveyance claim on the theory that a prima facie case could not be established when the recipient is a third party creditor with a higher security interest. In addition, the circuit court erred by applying a clear and convincing standard of proof to a claim for successor entity liability based on the mere continuation of business theory. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
For the reasons assigned in this opinion, the judgment is affirmed. The statutorily prescribed three-year term is both a mandatory minimum and a mandatory maximum sentence. Community Management Corp. She won that litigation, and then instituted the present separate action as plaintiff to recover her legal fees from that prior case, relying on a contractual provision in the confidentiality agreement on which the corporation previously sued, which allows fee recovery by a prevailing party in confidential information disputes.
The judgment dismissing the present fee action is affirmed. Yancey Lumber Corp. At the same time, the evidence shows that the modifications will not create an unreasonable burden on the defendant's servient. Thus, it cannot be said that the circuit court, by granting plaintiff the right to make these limited modifications, failed to maintain a balance in the interests of the parties, respectively, as dominant and servient landowners. McKinley Chiropractic Ctr. Here, the patient never obtained a judgment against the insured and relinquished all existing and future rights to recover from the insurer or its insured as part of the settlement of the personal injury claim.
Final judgment is entered for the insurance company. Combined case with Record Nos.