Legal Opinion

Taylor v. King

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided October 1, 2010No. 2009-CA-001599-MRPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WINE, Judge:

Tim Taylor, Administrator for the Estate of Christina Vertz, and others claiming as survivors of Christina Vertz (collectively, “the Estate”), appeal from a declaratory judgment finding that the Dram Shop Act, Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 413.241 (“the Act”), prohibits recovery of punitive damages. The Estate argues that this interpretation of the Act is erroneous, or, in the alternative, that the Act may not be constitutionally interpreted to prohibit recovery of punitive damages against a dram shop. We conclude that the prior interpretations of the Act are consistent…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Williams v. WilsonKentucky Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Grayson Fraternal Order of Eagles, Aerie No. 3738, Inc. v. ClaywellKentucky Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Ludwig v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
  4. Pike v. GeorgeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1968
  5. Perkins v. Northeastern Log HomesKentucky Supreme Court · 1991

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. M.T. v. SaumDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2014
  2. Carruthers v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2012
  3. Botkin v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2013
  4. Charles A. Frizzell Jr v. Commonwealth of KentuckyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2020
  5. Davenport Extreme Pools and Spas, Inc. v. Elizabeth Ann MulflurCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2024

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API