Clark v. Jones

4 Citing cases

  1. Fletcher v. Graham

    192 S.W.3d 350 (Ky. 2006)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that "acceptance of a pardon need not be formal, but may be inferred by the circumstances" and that "[t]his position embodies the notion that a pardon may be rejected, but also the common-sense assumption that such rejection will be the rare exception"

    .Clark v. Jones, 258 S.W.2d 902 (Ky. 1953).

  2. Luster v. L. Auxier

    285 S.W.2d 900 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 3 times

    In the latter case irreparable injury must be shown for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. Clark v. Jones, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 902; Chamblee v. Rose, Ky., 249 S.W.2d 775; Chesapeake Ohio R. Co. v. Murphy, 314 Ky. 309, 234 S.W.2d 969. This is not a case where the lower court is acting without jurisdiction, because the judgment on which the contempt proceeding is based is not void on its face.

  3. Kinslow v. Carter

    282 S.W.2d 141 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 3 times

    However, the character of the relief sought by petitioner makes necessary a determination of whether or not respondent is proceeding erroneously in such a manner that great and irreparable injury will occur, and petitioner is without another adequate remedy. Armstrong v. Bryan, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 835; Clark v. Jones, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 902. The Kentucky Constitution, Section 11, provides:

  4. Amstrong v. Bryan

    273 S.W.2d 835 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954)   Cited 5 times

    In the exercise of the power granted under Section 110 of our State Constitution, this Court has consistently adhered to the principle of law that it will not issue a writ of prohibition unless it is shown that the circuit court is proceeding or threatening to proceed (1) without jurisdiction or (2) erroneously within its jurisdiction, in such a manner that great and irreparable injury will result therefrom, and the petitioners are without another adequate remedy. Clark v. Jones, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 902; Local No. 181, Hotel Restaurant Employees Union v. Miller, Ky., 240 S.W.2d 576; Jones v. Tartar, 308 Ky. 813, 215 S.W.2d 955. In view of the fact that the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and of the parties (who are now the petitioners herein), we have only to determine whether or not there is a concurrence of the remaining requisites for the writ.