Daugherty v. TELEK
Kentucky Supreme Court
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
- New York v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Commonwealth v. TownsendKentucky Supreme Court · 2002
- United States v. CalorDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2001
- Parks v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2002