|
Kentucky Court of Justice
Supreme Court of Kentucky to hear arguments Oct. 17-18 in Frankfort
 |
The seven justices of the Supreme Court of Kentucky are (back row, from left) Justice Will T. Scott, Justice Wil Schroder, Deputy Chief Justice Mary C. Noble, Justice Bill Cunningham, (front row, from left) Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson, Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. and Justice Daniel J. Venters.
Photo credit: Kentucky Office of Creative Services |
FRANKFORT, Ky. -- The Supreme Court of Kentucky will convene Wednesday and Thursday, Oct. 17-18, in Frankfort to hear oral arguments in cases that originated in Fayette, Kenton, Knox, Logan and Nelson counties. Proceedings are open to the public and will take place in the Supreme Court Courtroom on the second floor of the state Capitol at 700 Capitol Ave. The court will hear cases at 9 and 10 a.m. EDT Oct. 17 and at 9, 10 and 11 a.m. EDT Oct. 18.
The public may also observe oral arguments via the Supreme Court live stream on the Kentucky Court of Justice website. Oral arguments are available online as they occur in real time and are not available as archives.
The Supreme Court is the state court of last resort and the final interpreter of Kentucky law. Seven justices (bios) sit on the Supreme Court and all seven justices rule on appeals that come before the court. The justices are elected from seven appellate districts and serve eight-year terms. A chief justice, chosen for a four-year term by fellow justices, is the administrative head of the state’s court system and is responsible for its operation. The Supreme Court may order a ruling or opinion to be published, which means that the ruling becomes the case law governing all similar cases in the future in Kentucky.
WEDNESDAY, OCT. 17, 2012
Click on a case name to go to the docket (PDF-64.84KB) and view briefs filed in the case.
9 AM
2010-SC-326-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. STEADMAN
2011-SC-508-DG
(CROSS-MOTION) STEADMAN V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Summary: “Criminal Law. Restitution. Jurisdiction. The questions presented include whether a defendant can consent to a delay in a restitution hearing and disposition beyond ten days after entry of final judgment.”
Discretionary Review granted 3-16-2011 and 10-19-2011
Logan Circuit Court, Judge Tyler L. Gill
Attorney for Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Todd Dryden Ferguson
Attorney for Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Kyle Anthony Burden
10 AM
2011-SC-227-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. HAMILTON, ET AL.
Summary: “Challenge to reclassification of a Controlled Substance by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.”
Discretionary Review granted 3-14-2012
Knox Circuit Court, Judge Gregory Allen Lay
Attorney for Appellant: James Coleman Shackelford
Attorneys for Appellees: Donn Randall Jewell and Travis Alan Rossman
THURSDAY, OCT. 18, 2012
Click on a case name to go to the docket (PDF-64.84KB) and view briefs filed in the case.
9 AM
2011-SC-403-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. OUSLEY
Summary: “Criminal Law. Warrantless searches of defendant’s trash container. Expectation of privacy.”
Discretionary Review granted 4-18-2012
Fayette Circuit Court, Judge James D. Ishmael Jr.
Attorney for Appellant: David Wayne Barr
Attorney for Appellee: Louis W. Rom
10 AM
2011-SC-271-DG
N.C., A CHILD UNDER EIGHTEEN V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Summary: “Juvenile Law. Custody. Miranda. The issue is whether a juvenile’s incriminating statements are admissible where the school’s assistant principal questioned the juvenile about criminal conduct in the presence of a school resource officer, who was also a deputy sheriff, without giving the juvenile Miranda warnings or telling the juvenile he was free to leave the office, refuse to answer questions or free to call his legal guardian.”
Discretionary Review granted 2-15-2012
Nelson Circuit Court, Judge Robert W. Heaton
Attorneys for Appellant: Robert Kenneth Strong and Renee Sara Vandenwallbake
Attorneys for Appellee: Terry Lane Geoghegan and John Samuel Kelley V.
11 AM
2011-SC-665-DG
FORT MITCHELL COUNTRY CLUB V. TIMOTHY LAMARRE, ET AL.
Summary: “Torts. Dram Shop Act. Issues include whether statutory violations other than the sale of alcohol to a minor deprive a dram shop of the Act’s protection and whether intent to hold intoxicated tortfeasors primarily liable and licensed alcohol sellers only secondarily liable survives Taylor v. King, 345 S.W.3d 237 (Ky. App. 2010).”
Discretionary Review granted 3-14-2012
Kenton Circuit Court, Judge Gregory M. Bartlett
Attorneys for Appellant: Mark G. Arnzen, Donald L. Stepner and Daniel Edward Linneman
Attorneys for Appellees: Todd V. McMurtry and Ryan Michael McLane
|