Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Abell v. Meguire

    402 S.W.2d 91 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 3 times
    In Abell v. Meguire, Ky., 402 S.W.2d 91, and Bailey v. Ashland Discount Assn., Ky., 400 S.W.2d 508, we had occasion to pass upon the meaning of "promptly" as used in CR 75.01.

    It is incumbent upon the appellant to bestir himself, and if he may utilize appeal procedure for the purpose of delay, it not only violates appellee's rights but also both the spirit and the letter of the Civil Rules. As we have emphasized in so many of our cases, an appeal is a serious matter and the Civil Rules may be fairly administered only if strict compliance is required equally of all. They have sufficient built-in flexibility. Electric Plant Board of City of Hopkinsville v. Stephens, Ky., 273 S.W.2d 817; Wallace v. Walters Keene Motor Co., Ky., 280 S.W.2d 493; Belk-Simpson Co. v. Hill, Ky., 288 S.W.2d 369; Hargis v. Dumbacher, Ky., 293 S.W.2d 637; Motors Ins. Corp. v. Fields, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 518; United Mine Workers of America, Dist. No. 23, v. Morris, Ky., 307 S.W.2d 763; Davenport v. Martin, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 775; Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541; Maslow Cooperage Corporation v. Hofgesang, Ky., 316 S.W.2d 126, 127; Knight v. Resolute Insurance Company, Ky., 321 S.W.2d 255; Hawkins v. Hoskinson, Ky., 324 S.W.2d 399; Commonwealth v. Black, Ky., 329 S.W.2d 192, 193; Taylor v. Warman, Ky., 331 S.W.2d 899; Jackson v. Jones, Ky., 336 S.W.2d 565; Louisville Gas Electric Company v. Patterson, Ky., 343 S.W.2d 371; Davidson v. Davidson, Ky., 344 S.W.2d 823; Bottom v. Bybee, Ky., 358 S.W.2d 542. A dissatisfied party is allowed 30 days after the entry of judgment to determine whether the record justifies the taking of an appeal. If a litigant has so decided, he must, at the time of filing his notice of appeal, have some idea of the grounds of his appeal and the record he will require.

  2. Pendleton v. Commonwealth

    349 S.W.2d 832 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 6 times
    In Pendleton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 349 S.W.2d 832, and Commonwealth ex rel. Murphy v. Morehead, Ky., 411 S.W.2d 31, we recognized that compliance with the requirements of CR 72.01 was necessary to properly perfect an appeal in a bastardy proceeding.

    Belk-Simpson Co. v. Hill, Ky., 288 S.W.2d 369. It is necessary to perfect an appeal in order to vest the circuit court with jurisdiction. Commonwealth ex rel. Curlin v. Taylor, Ky., 279 S.W.2d 813; Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541. Appellant failed to perfect the appeal within the time provided. It is urged that the certification of the judgment should have been permitted after the expiration of the time for an appeal as a correction under CR 75.08. This rule is applicable to appeals to this Court only and does not afford any relief on an attempted appeal to the circuit court.

  3. HOY v. NEWBURG HOMES, INC

    325 S.W.2d 301 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 10 times

    It is essential that the monetary value be fixed so that the jurisdiction of the appellate court will be established prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541. The motion to fix the value cannot be considered ancillary.

  4. Monsour v. Humphrey

    324 S.W.2d 813 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 5 times
    In Humphrey, the court had dismissed the appeal as the notice "did not show an amount in controversy sufficient to confer jurisdiction on [the] Court," as then required by KRS 21.070 (1959).

    This Court has stated that it does not acquire jurisdiction of an appeal unless there is the requisite showing of an amount in controversy sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction. See Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541; Hoy v. Newburg Homes, Inc., Ky., 325 S.W.2d 301. However, this means only that the Court does not have jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the appeal. Necessarily, when a notice of appeal has been filed, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to determine the fact of whether there is a proper showing of a jurisdictional amount in controversy.

  5. Maslow Cooperage Corporation v. Hofgesang

    316 S.W.2d 126 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 8 times

    In support of the latter contention, reference is made to certain testimony concerning the estimated cost of improvements placed on the premises by appellant, the amount at which the premises were carried as assets on the books of the corporation, and an offer made to surrender the lease. In Coyle v. Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Ky., 314 S.W.2d 541, a similar contention was adversely decided. It is there pointed out that many factors affect the establishment of the value of the right to enjoy possession of premises under an unexpired lease. To these may be added depreciation on the improvements made by the lessee.