KRS 45A.280 supports the principle that judicial review is available to disappointed bidders under the KMPC.

County fiscal courts and not the city are vested with management and disposal of solid waste collection.

Tax exemptions are narrowly construed.  Party seeking the exemption has the burden to he/she is entitled to the exemption.  This appeal dealt with a 'comma' in the statute and whether the legislature exempted devices prescribed by a physician.

Trial court abused discretion in denying party continuance when her counsel withdrew and was forced to trial without counsel and lost custody of her son.  Two continuance had previously been granted.

Affirmed dismissal of suit as untimely.  Claim that plaintiff was tolled based upon disability requires plaintiff’s mental illness  “render [him] incapable of managing [his] own affairs.” 
 

This appeal dealt with consolidated personal injury actions and an agreement to indemnify the other party for the loss arising from the underlying personal injury action.  Summary judgment was granted in favor of the indemnity claim and this appeal arose.

The COA affirmed and held the burden was on the party to show there was an oral modification of the agreement.  

With regard to preservation of issues for appeal, the COA did note that the issues of equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, and oral modification were preserved, but modification of the agreement through the course of employment and incomplete discovery were not raised.  "It is well established that we will not address issues that were not raised before the trial court nor decided by it."

CA vacated and remanded Marshall's convictions for Trafficking in Cocaine and PFO 2 because the police officer's warrantless seizure of a prescription-pill bottle which contained crack cocaine was not permissible under the plain view doctrine.  The key factor is whether the object seized has an incriminating character that is immediately apparent.  Hazel v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d 831 (Ky. 1992).  The officer's testimony at the suppression hearing made clear that, at the time of the search, he thought further investigation was necessary before concluding that the pill bottle contained cocaine.

CA affirmed Crum's convictions for Attempted Murder and related offenses.  The search and seizure of weapons and other materials from Crum's trunk was valid as incident to a lawful arrest for Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree.

Since appellant had failed to procure the medical insurance, she was not allowed to collect those premiums from her husband as there were no premiums to pay.
 

Modification of prior custody decree requires the court to find “that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or his custodian, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.”  Father's claim that he had physical custody bare majority of the time not sufficient.

Dad objected to child care expenses since he and his family could watch the children and to dental insurance premiums since no expressly authorized by statute.  Dad lost on both counts.  First,  the 15% threshold for child-support modification does not apply to allocation of child-care expenses. The allocation of child care expenses is in the nature of a prepayment or reimbursement of the share of actual costs, and if the expense is not incurred the other party is entitled to be repaid the amount they had  provided.  Accordingly, the only issue is whether the claimed expenses for child-care are “reasonable and necessary.”

Affirmed Safe Auto's exclusion of underinsured motorist benefits regarding cohabiting non-relatives.  UIM coverage is available to the named insured and his or her resident relatives.

Trial court held owners of the easement could fence the easement at their expense.  COA: No abuse of discretion by requiring servient estate to pay for fencing to keep cows from the dominant easement off of roadway. 

The Court of Appeals reversed based on the Supreme Court's holding in Hunter Excavating v. Bartrum that the administrative regulations limiting the number of x-ray readings allowed to rebut a finding of consensus were unconstitutional.
 

The ALJ dismissed the claimant’s case based on evidence which showed his condition was due to a different injury. The Board and COA affirmed, finding that the evidence was not so overwhelming as to compel a decision in the claimant’s favor.