Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Evans Elkhorn Coal Company v. Ousley

388 S.W.2d 130 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Evans Elkhorn Coal Company v. Ousley

6 Citing cases

  1. Hall v. Hospitality Resources

    276 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2009)   Cited 68 times
    Stating that "[w]e have often said that statutes will not be given [such a] reading where to do so would lead to an absurd or unreasonable conclusion."

    A motion to reopen is, in some respects, similar to a motion to re-docket, where the grounds for re-docketing are tested prior to the matter proceeding further. Cf., Evans Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Ousley, 388 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Ky. 1965) and Stambaugh v. Cedar Creek Mining Co., 488 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Ky. 1972). As we explained in Stambaugh:

  2. The Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. Beard

    690 S.W.2d 374 (Ky. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In The Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. Beard, 690 S.W.2d 374 (Ky. 1984), the Supreme Court of Kentucky addressed whether a newspaper was required to respond to a subpoena duces tecum in a case where a newspaper was accused of publishing defamatory articles.

    The test for determining the appealable character of an order of the trial court is whether ". . . the order grants or denies the ultimate relief sought in the action or requires further steps to be taken in order that parties' rights may be finally determined." Evans Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Ousley, Ky., 388 S.W.2d 130, 130-131 (1965). In Claussner Hosiery Co. v. City of Paducah, 275 Ky. 149, 120 S.W.2d 1039 (1938), we held that the trial court's order granting a subpoena duces tecum requiring the witness to produce the books and records of a corporation was "purely interlocutory" and therefore, not appealable.

  3. Jones v. Jayweera

    NO. 2014-CA-001628-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2016)

    The final and appealable character of an order or judgment is assessed "on the basis of whether the order grants or denies the ultimate relief sought in the action or requires further steps to be taken in order that the parties' rights may be finally determined." Evans Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Ousley, 388 S.W.2d 130, 130-31 (1965). Jones ceaselessly attempted to amend a complaint in a civil action in which she was no longer entitled to plead.

  4. Mullins v. Mullins

    NO. 2013-CA-000605-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2014)

    "The test for determining the appealable character of an order of the trial court is whether '... the order grants or denies the ultimate relief sought in the action or requires further steps to be taken in order that parties' rights may be finally determined.'" The Lexington Herald-Leader Co. v. Beard, 690 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Ky. 1985) (quoting Evans Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Ousley, 388 S.W.2d 130, 130-131 (1965)). In this matter, the circuit court's order was in essence a discovery order compelling Husband to produce to Wife the information she would need to prepare and submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for entry by the circuit court.

  5. Sizemore v. Sizemore

    NO. 2013-CA-000219-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2014)

    The test for determining the appealable character of an order of the trial court is whether "... the order grants or denies the ultimate relief sought in the action or requires further steps to be taken in order that parties' rights may be finally determined." Evans Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Ousley, Ky., 388 S.W.2d 130, 130-131 (1965).In Claussner Hosiery Co. v. City of Paducah, 275 Ky. 149, 120 S.W.2d 1039 (1938), we held that the trial court's order granting a subpoena duces tecum requiring the witness to produce the books and records of a corporation was "purely interlocutory" and therefore, not appealable.

  6. Chicago Insurance v. Travelers Insurance Co.

    967 S.W.2d 35 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times
    In Chicago Ins. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Ky.App. 1997), 967 S.W.2d 35, the court described a Travelers policy issued to Walgreen Company as essentially a "fronting policy" by which Walgreen was self-insured because the policy had matching $1 million deductible and coverage limits.

    "[T]he final and appealable character of an order should be tested on the basis of whether the order grants or denies the ultimate relief sought in the action or requires further steps to be taken in order that the parties' rights may be finally determined." Evans Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Ousley, Ky., 388 S.W.2d 130, 131 (1965). Here, the underlying action sought a declaration of rights and obligations.