It is a well-known rule among Kentucky appellate litigators that “an appellate court may affirm a trial court for reasons

The issue sometimes arises in Kentucky medical negligence cases whether a treating physician who is giving a deposition may be

Modern federal jurisprudence governing the required standard for stating a cause of action in a complaint has imposed a higher

In Jefferson v. Eggemeyer (2015-SC-625, rendered April 27, 2017), the Kentucky Supreme Court’s Justice Keller considered the circumstances under which

In a recent 2-1 decision, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reduced a massive punitive damages award (four times the substantial

A proposed settlement of a national class-action lawsuit should make it easier for people with chronic conditions and disabilities to qualify for Medicare coverage for home healthcare services, skilled nursing care, and therapy.

Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in 1970 to require consumer reporting agencies to accurately report consumer credit information. The FCRA gives consumers rights to dispute errors in credit reports. Consumers must follow a specific procedure to properly dispute an error in a credit report. Likewise, reporters of information concerning a consumer’s credit must follow specific investigatory procedures upon receipt of notice of disputed information.

In a very recent decision, Benningfield v. Zinsmeister, — S.W.3d —, 2009-SC-000660-DG (6/25/12), the Kentucky Supreme Court interpreted Kentucky statutes as permitting a landlord to be held liable when a tenant’s dog attacks someone on or about the leased premises. In a plurality opinion, the Court determined that the landlord can be considered the statutory owner of the dog under KRS 258.095(5) if the landlord has permitted the dog to be kept on the leased premises.

Whether a consumer is purchasing a vehicle from a used car lot or any product online, it is prudent to keep in mind the old axiom “buyer beware.” But in the everyday sale of real estate, it is just as prudent to be guided by the maxim “seller beware.”

It is commonly understood that a spouse cannot be forced to reveal marital communications, a confessor cannot reveal a penitent’s sins, and an attorney cannot reveal a client’s confidential information. But late last year a court in Ohio held that attorneys could be forced to reveal client communications in a bankruptcy proceeding.

In Maker’s Mark v. Diageo North America, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote an entertaining opinion that even a non-lawyer will enjoy. This toast to Kentucky bourbon blends history and law in an enjoyable manner.

The increasingly common practice of “trolling,” which is a distinct effort to evoke emotion over the internet, has the potential to cause serious injury to people harassed.

The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, is a federal law that was instituted to regulate the collection practices of debt collectors and to protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices. However, it is important to for businesses to note that this law generally does not apply to a business collecting its own outstanding accounts receivable.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) hopes that its recent settlement of $1.5 million with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tennessee serves as a warning to healthcare providers and insurers.

Courts often deal with the issue of whether a particular employee is exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The results are significant. Exempt employees are not entitled to overtime wages or the minimum wage. As well, an employer does not have the same record keeping obligations for exempt employees.

When a check is issued to joint payees, the Uniform Commercial Code (as adopted in both Ohio and Kentucky) requires that all payees endorse the check before the check may be properly cashed or accepted for deposit by a bank. Situations involving joint checks arise in a variety of circumstances.

Last month, a federal court in Texas celebrated a rare event in the long and contentious history of church-state relations in the United States. In a “prayer-in-public-schools” case, what the court celebrated was a landmark settlement agreement which the complaining students and the school district hammered out and agreed to in a voluntary mediation process. A copy of the settlement agreement appears in the very brief court opinion approving the agreement as a model for other school districts.