Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Grubb v. Smith
Kentucky Supreme Court
Decided March 23, 2017No. 2014-SC-000641-DGPublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CUNNINGHAM, J„
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:
Consistent with my votes in the previous cases cited by the Majority abrogating the old “open and obvious” principle, I dissent to that portion of the opinion. However, I concur in the exoneration of Roxanne Smith and the recusal issue. Therefore, I concur in part and dissent in part.
VENTERS, J.,
SEPARATE OPINION:
Because of this Court’s recent opinions in Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC, 471 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2015), and Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013), with its abolition of the traditional “open and…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2013
- Harry Deaktor v. Fox Grocery Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation and John F. FoxCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
- Giuliani v. GuilerKentucky Supreme Court · 1997
- Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLCKentucky Supreme Court · 2015
- Granquist v. Crystal Springs Lumber Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1941
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.