Minutes for Oct. 21, 2005.
Published Decisions
- FAIRBANKS ARTIC BLIND CO. V. PRATHER & ASSOCIATES
BUSINESS - Corporations (Reinstatement, Validity of Acts)
2004-CA-001257
PUBLISHED
REVERSING AND REMANDING
HUDDLESTON
Date: 10/21/2005COA applied the rationale of J.B. Wolfe and Joseph A. Holpuch, that it intended for reinstatement to restore a corporation to the same position it would have occupied had it not been dissolved and that reinstatement validates any action taken by a corporation between the time it was administratively dissolved and the date of its reinstatement. Simply put, the General Assembly meant what it said, that upon reinstatement, it is “as if the administrative dissolution . . . had never occurred.”
SANDOZ PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. V. GUNDERSON
EVIDENCE - Experts (Daubert)
DAMAGES - Punitives
2004-CA-001536
PUBLISHED
AFFIRMING IN PART, VACATING IN PART, AND REMANDING
KNOPF
Date: 10/21/2005Although experts are not permitted merely to speculate, if their opinions are supported by good grounds based on what is known, it is for the fact finder to decide if they are deserving of credence. Kentucky's Supreme Court has held, however, that the trial court need not conduct a Daubert hearing if the record before it is complete enough to measure the proffered testimony against the proper standards of reliability and relevance. . . . [T]he record upon which a trial court can make an admissibility decision without a hearing usually will consist of ‘the proposed expert’s reports, affidavits, deposition testimony, and existing precedent. The voluminous record in this case, which included the experts’ depositions and affidavits, much of the material upon which they relied, extensive briefing by the parties, and precedent from other Parlodel® litigation, satisfied that standard.
However, the punitive damage instruction was flawed and that portion of the verdict was reversed.
STEEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. ESTATE OF CONGLETON
DAMAGES - Pre-impact Fright Allowed as Element of Damages
PUBLISHED on 6/24/2005; MODIFIED on 10/21/2005
While “the usual sequence is impact followed by pain and suffering, we are unable to discern any reason based on either law or logic for rejecting a claim because in this case, . . . this sequence was reversed.”NICHOLS V. COM.
CRIMINAL - Search and Seizure (Investigatory stop; reasonable suspicion)
2004-CA-001426
PUBLISHED
AFFIRMING
HENRY
Date: 10/21/2005A tip by a store security guard alleging that a customer has just purchased a large quantity of pseudoephedrine, when considered together with the rational inferences from that act, create a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” of possible criminal activity sufficient to justify an investigatory stop.
Comments