Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bank One, Kentucky, N.A. v. Murphy

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 2001No. 2000-SC-0229-DGPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKeller, Justice

I agree with the majority that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Bank One as to Murphy’s KRS 344.040 sexual harassment claim. I write separately, however, because I agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Murphy’s motions to amend her complaint to allege KRS 344.280(1) retaliation claims connected with Bank One’s decision to interrupt the settlement negotiations and bring a declaratory judgment action in federal court. Although this Court has addressed interpretive issues concerning KRS 344.280(1) only once *547befo…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. William J. Ray v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  2. Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  3. Sherwin S. Stern v. United States Gypsum, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1977
  4. Berry v. Stevinson ChevroletCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
  5. Joan M. Steffes v. Stepan CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998

18 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