Stanley v. C & R Asphalt, LLC

I respectfully dissent. I admit that Matthews v. Viking Energy Holdings, LLC, 341 S.W.3d 594 (Ky.App.2011), supports the view taken by the majority. However, I believe that its holding should be revisited and this Court’s strict adherence to technical rules be replaced with our modern substantial compliance approach to our procedural rules.

In Ready v. Jamison, 705 S.W.2d 479 (Ky.1986), our Supreme Court recognized the injustice of strict application of our appellate rules of procedure and established the doctrine of substantial compli-*927anee in this jurisdiction. In doing so, it explained:

With…