Starting April 16th 2005 the E-Government Act of 2002 requires that the court provide access to the substance of all written opinions issued by the court, regardless of whether such opinions are to be published in the official court reporter, in a text searchable format.
Written Opinions filed after April 16, 2005, are now searchable and available at no cost to ECF and PACER users.
ECF USERS: Enter your ECF login and password and click on the "Reports" option on the blue menubar. Click on the "Written Opinions" report to search for opinions or to view case specific opinions filed after April 16, 2005. You will NOT be prompted to enter your PACER login and password.
PACER USERS: Enter your PACER login and password and click on the "Reports" option on the bluemenu bar. Click on the "Written Opinions" report to search for opinions or to view case specific opinions filed after April 16, 2005. You will NOT be charged for running this report or viewing, printing or saving opinions listed on this report. To avoid billing charges, ALWAYS use the "Written Opinions" report to view, print or save court opinions.
Case Name: Wheat v. Brown-Forman Corp.
Abstract: Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, alleging discrimination and retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. The case will not be remanded to state court because the state claims are preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The case will be dismissed because the employee must first file a grievance and submit the matter to arbitration.
Case Name: Friedman v. Bishop
Abstract: Plaintiff brought motion to reconsider court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim. Motion for reconsideration denied.
Case Name: Rodgers v. Chapleau, et al.
Abstract: Defendants' motion for summary judgment on 1983 claim granted. Prison officials did not demonstrate deliberate indifference to prisoner's risk of suicide.
Case Name: Wheat v. Brown-Forman Corp.
Abstract: Plaintiff brought motion to reconsider order of this court that dismissed plaintiff's discrimination claim on basis that it was preempted by LMRA. On further review, court found that LMRA preemption did not apply despite fact that employer's defense was based upon terms in CBA. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider granted and action remanded to Jefferson Circuit Court.
Case Name: Fund for Animals v. Governor Paul Patton, et al.
Abstract: Wildlife Conservation Fund of American moved to intervene in action in which plaintiffs brought constitutional challenges to Kentucky's procedure for selecting nominees from which the Governor will appoint members to Kentucky's Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Commission. The process currently limits voting to sportsmen--citizens with a hunting or fishing license. The intervenors have an interest in this action which may be impaired and which is not adequately represented by the defendants. Motion to intervene granted.
Case Name: Hunt Enterprises v. John Deere Industrial Equipment Co.
Abstract: Motion to dismiss in this contract action granted on the grounds that (1) there is no inequitable conduct or breach of good faith to enforce the express terms of a contract, (2) oral agreements cannot be used to vary the terms of the written agreement, (3) a claim for misrepresentation must pertain to present or pre-existing facts, not future events, (4) the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act does not apply, and (5) tortious interference with contract not sufficiently pleaded.
Case Name: Friedman v. Bishop
Abstract: Plaintiff brought motion to reconsider court's order granting summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff had filed suit against defendant under Section 1983, alleging a violation of his rights when he was terminated from employment. The court held that the Judge-Executive was entitled to qualified immunity for the termination and the delay between the termination and hearing was not a constitutional violation. Motion for reconsideration denied.
Case Name: Kentucky Laborers District Council Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Hill & Knowlton, Inc., e
Abstract: On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court considered whether a union health and welfare fund presented viable claims against the cigarette industry under RICO, the antitrust laws, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and under a variety of common law causes of action, including intentional misrepresentation, intentional breach of a special duty, and unjust enrichment. The Court dismissed: (1) a number of claims because the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause; (2) all the antitrust claims because the plaintiff failed to establish an antitrust injury; (3) the Kentucky Consumer Act claim because the plaintiff did not qualify as a viable party to bring suit; (4) the breach of special duty claim because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants accepted the duty; and (5) the unjust enrichment claim because the plaintiff failed to establish that they conferred a benefit on the defendants. After considering the RICO standing, the Court allowed the RICO claims to go forward. Similarly, after considering a proximate cause challenge, the Court allowed the intentional misrepresentation claim to proceed.
Case Name: Bradley Todd v. United Parcel Service
Case Name: In re Big Rivers Electric Corporation; Pik-Coal Company v. Big Rivers Electric Corporation
Abstract: Appellant filed proof of claim in bankruptcy proceeding to recover benefit of the bargain; Bankruptcy Court disallowed claim on statute of limitations ground; District Court affirmed; Ten year statute of limitations for fraud barred appellant's claim; cause of action accrued in 1980 when appellee's employee entered into bribery agreement with third party and appellee awarded contract to third party; cause of action did not accrue in 1992 nor was statute of limitations tolled until 1992 when final bribery payment was made