Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Daugherty v. TELEK

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 2012No. 2011-SC-000043-DGEPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partScott, J.

I agree with the majority that the Kenton Family Court unquestionably had subject matter jurisdiction over Bucher’s domestic violence petition. However, I do not believe that the family court had the legal authority to continue reissuing the EPO and postponing the DVO hearing after September 23, 2009. Therefore, I must dissent from the portion of the majority opinion which approves of the family court’s actions after that date.

An EPO provides extraordinary relief under the law.12 It permits a trial court to impose severe restrictions on a respondent based solely upon the ex parte assertions…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. New York v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Commonwealth v. TownsendKentucky Supreme Court · 2002
  3. United States v. CalorDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2001
  4. Parks v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API