Kentucky Court of Appeals Opinions in 2024: An Expanded Year in Review

Kentucky Court of Appeals Opinions in 2024: An Expanded Year in Review

Introduction

Throughout 2024, the Kentucky Court of Appeals issued several pivotal decisions impacting family law, criminal justice, medical malpractice, constitutional law, and administrative immunity. These opinions reveal evolving interpretations of legal doctrines and statutes, reflecting societal changes and emerging legal challenges. This comprehensive review explores the most significant opinions, explaining the Court’s rationale and their implications for both practitioners and the public.

This blog is authored by John Schmidt, attorney and founder of John Schmidt & Associates, PLLC. With over 25 years of legal experience, John has built a reputation for delivering timely and effective results in areas such as family law, criminal defense, and civil litigation. Recognized as a speaker at the Kentucky Bar Association’s annual convention and an active member of the Kentucky Bar Association, John combines a client-focused approach with deep legal expertise to provide insightful commentary on the evolving legal landscape.

Table of Contents

1. Criminal Law: Balancing Rights and Procedure
2. Family Law: Parental Rights and Custody
3. Medical Malpractice and Torts
4. Government Powers and Constitutional Law
5. Qualified and Sovereign Immunity
6. Conclusion
7. Author’s Note

1. Criminal Law: Balancing Rights and Procedure

The Court of Appeals reinforced important procedural safeguards while clarifying the permissible scope of evidence admission and law enforcement practices. Two notable cases addressed these concerns in depth: Bandy v. Commonwealthand Clay v. Commonwealth.

Bandy v. Commonwealth

The Court examined the admission of a defendant’s prior conviction, which had been pardoned by former Governor Matt Bevin, during the sentencing phase. Bandy was convicted of strangulation and other assault-related charges. At sentencing, the prosecution introduced a certified copy of a previous assault conviction, which had been pardoned. Bandy’s defense argued that the pardon should shield him from any reference to the prior conviction.

However, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that under Kentucky’s Truth in Sentencing Act (KRS 532.055), evidence of both pardoned and non-pardoned prior convictions may be admissible during sentencing. The Court reasoned that while a pardon restores civil rights and relieves legal penalties, it does not erase the fact of the conviction itself. Thus, juries can consider such convictions when determining appropriate punishment【37†source】.

Additionally, Bandy’s claim that a mistrial was warranted after unedited body camera footage referenced his “priors” was rejected. The Court upheld the trial court’s denial of a mistrial, concluding that the improper reference did not meet the threshold of “manifest necessity”【37†source】.

Legal Insight by John Schmidt

“Cases like Bandy highlight the delicate balance between ensuring a fair trial and preserving the integrity of sentencing processes. As an attorney, I’ve seen how strategic evidentiary objections at the trial level can influence appellate outcomes. It’s crucial to lay a strong procedural foundation early on.”

Clay v. Commonwealth

In Clay, the Court tackled the issue of warrantless searches at traffic stops. Clay, a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a minor traffic violation, was subjected to a search after a K-9 unit alerted officers to the presence of drugs. During the stop, officers found cocaine and a handgun on Clay’s person. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the stop was unlawfully prolonged without reasonable suspicion.

The Court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the “totality of circumstances.” The officer had observed the vehicle in a high-crime area with suspicious activity prior to the stop, including interactions suggestive of drug transactions. These observations provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the continued detention and the K-9 search【38†source】. This case underscored law enforcement’s discretion to act on situational cues, balancing constitutional protections against crime prevention.

Rationale and Implications

Both cases illuminate the Court’s commitment to procedural fairness while affirming that defendants’ past behavior and circumstantial evidence may influence sentencing and searches. The decisions reinforce that Kentucky courts will defer to lower courts’ factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, particularly in suppression hearings and sentencing matters.

2. Family Law: Parental Rights and Custody

In 2024, family law rulings emphasized the sanctity of custody agreements while providing clarity on the rights of non-biological parents. Significant cases included Kutter v. Kutter and Link v. Link, which addressed the modification of custody orders and standing for non-parents.

Kutter v. Kutter

This case involved a dispute over whether a mother could unilaterally modify a custody agreement’s provisions regarding religious and educational decisions. After obtaining a temporary Domestic Violence Order (DVO), the mother sought to change the children’s school without consulting the father, despite a separation agreement that granted joint custody and specified that the children would attend a particular school.

The Court ruled that the family court had erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. Temporary sole custody under a DVO does not automatically override prior custodial agreements. Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 403.180 permits courts to modify custody terms only after proper hearings and findings on the children’s best interests. By skipping this step, the family court violated procedural requirements【36†source】.

Link v. Link

In a groundbreaking ruling, the Court recognized the standing of a step-parent to petition for joint custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The stepfather had co-parented his former spouse’s child for over six years, fulfilling traditional parental responsibilities such as providing financial support and care.

The trial court initially dismissed the petition, asserting that the stepfather lacked standing. However, the appellate court vacated this decision, emphasizing that Kentucky law permits non-parents who have acted as de facto custodians to seek custody. The Court also clarified that courts must thoroughly evaluate whether a parent has waived superior custody rights by consenting to co-parenting arrangements【39†source】.

Legal Insight by John Schmidt

“Custody disputes often become emotionally charged and legally complex. As a mediator and family law attorney, I’ve found that demonstrating consistent involvement and support for a child’s welfare can strongly influence a court’s decision. Courts look for stability, and long-term co-parenting plays a critical role.”

Rationale and Implications

These rulings reinforce the importance of due process and stability in family law. Courts must adhere to procedural safeguards to ensure that decisions affecting children’s welfare are made with full consideration of evidence and legal standards. The Link decision, in particular, signals greater recognition of non-traditional family structures and the evolving definition of parenthood in Kentucky.

3. Medical Malpractice and Torts

Medical negligence cases addressed expert testimony requirements and the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

Lloyd v. Norton Hospitals

The plaintiff, Deborah Lloyd, underwent knee surgery during which a suture needle was inadvertently left inside her body. After subsequent surgeries and health complications, she filed a malpractice suit against the hospital, radiologists, and surgical staff. The trial court granted summary judgment to several defendants, excluding expert testimony critical of their actions.

The Court of Appeals reversed in part, ruling that expert testimony from an orthopedic surgeon criticizing the radiologists was admissible, even though the expert was not a radiologist. Kentucky law permits experts from different fields to testify if their knowledge and experience are relevant. Additionally, the Court held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applied, allowing the jury to infer negligence from the presence of a foreign object left in the plaintiff’s body【41†source】.

Burns v. Aistrop

This case involved a personal injury claim against Louisville’s Director of Public Works. The plaintiff alleged that she tripped on a defective sidewalk. The director asserted qualified immunity, arguing that decisions about sidewalk maintenance were discretionary rather than ministerial.

The Court sided with the director, finding that her role involved discretionary judgment in prioritizing repairs based on available resources and citizen complaints. As such, she was shielded by qualified immunity under Kentucky law【40†source】.

Legal Insight by John Schmidt

“When handling personal injury or medical malpractice cases, understanding the nuances of expert testimony and doctrines like res ipsa loquitur can make or break a case. I always advise clients to work with seasoned experts who can clearly articulate how negligence may have occurred.”

Rationale and Implications

These cases highlight the nuanced application of negligence doctrines and immunity defenses. The Court reaffirmed that while expert testimony is often crucial in medical malpractice cases, certain situations, such as retained foreign objects, permit inferences of negligence without expert testimony. Moreover, Burns clarified the scope of immunity protections for government officials performing high-level administrative functions.

4. Government Powers and Constitutional Law

Coleman v. Beshear

This high-profile case examined the separation of powers in Kentucky’s government. The General Assembly passed legislation restructuring the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, reducing the Governor’s power to appoint and remove members. Governor Beshear challenged the law, asserting that it infringed upon his constitutional authority as the Commonwealth’s chief executive.

The Court of Appeals upheld the law, emphasizing that Kentucky’s Constitution allows for the diffusion of executive power among multiple independently elected officers. The Court rejected analogies to federal executive authority, noting that unlike the U.S. President, Kentucky’s Governor shares executive responsibilities with other constitutional officers【42†source】【43†source】.

Rationale and Implications

This decision underscores the distinct structure of Kentucky’s government, where legislative authority can limit executive control over administrative bodies. The ruling may inspire further legislative actions to redistribute powers traditionally concentrated in the Governor’s office.

5. Qualified and Sovereign Immunity

Multiple rulings refined the legal standards for immunity in Kentucky, balancing governmental efficiency with accountability.

In Burns v. Aistrop (revisited), the Court distinguished between discretionary and ministerial duties. Public officials are shielded from liability for discretionary acts, which involve policy judgments, but may be liable for failing to perform ministerial tasks【40†source】.

Rationale and Implications

These decisions affirm Kentucky’s commitment to protecting public officials from undue litigation while ensuring accountability for negligent execution of mandatory duties.

6. Conclusion

The Kentucky Court of Appeals decisions in 2024 shaped legal interpretations across multiple practice areas. By clarifying procedural safeguards, redefining parental rights, and balancing government powers, the Court continues to influence the Commonwealth’s evolving legal landscape.

7. Author’s Note

Thank you for reading this comprehensive review of Kentucky Court of Appeals decisions. I’m John Schmidt, an attorney dedicated to helping individuals and businesses navigate complex legal challenges. Whether you’re facing a family law dispute, criminal charge, or civil litigation, my team and I are here to provide expert guidance and advocacy.

Feel free to reach out to discuss your case. Visit John Schmidt & Associates to schedule a consultation.