{"content":[{"text":"KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS \n PUBLISHED OPINIONS \n MAY 2012","bbox":{"left":0.342239,"top":0.08903,"width":0.3150969999999999,"height":0.05585899999999999}},{"text":"I.","bbox":{"left":0.117686,"top":0.161328,"width":0.01254899999999999,"height":0.020985000000000004}},{"text":"ADMINISTRATIVE LAW \n A. Studor, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Office of Housing, Buildings and \n Construction \n 2011-CA-000474 05/04/2012 2012 WL 1556385 \n Opinion by Judge VanMeter; Judges Acree and Moore concurred. The Court \n affirmed an order of the circuit court denying appellant’s petition for a writ of \n mandamus and motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in \n favor of appellees. The appellant manufacturer of a plumbing device, which it \n claimed minimized the need for vent piping, sought a writ ordering appellees to \n amend the Plumbing Code to permit the use of the device in Kentucky. The Court \n held that appellees’ actions were not arbitrary or capricious and that appellant was \n afforded procedural due process. Appellant was provided with the opportunity to \n present evidence and an unfavorable outcome did not equate to a denial of due \n process; appellees actions were supported by substantial evidence; appellees were \n not required to present evidence in rebuttal or in opposition to appellant’s \n evidence; and whether the device was evaluated under the “equal to or better \n than” standard under 815 KAR 20:020, rather than the “best known method” \n standard under KRS 318.150, appellees properly exercised their discretion in \n declining to amend the Code or otherwise approve the product.","bbox":{"left":0.176503,"top":0.161328,"width":0.7057100000000001,"height":0.33344700000000005}},{"text":"II.","bbox":{"left":0.117686,"top":0.512427,"width":0.020196000000000006,"height":0.02098500000000003}},{"text":"ATTORNEY AND CLIENT \n A. Cassady v. Wolf Creek Collieries Employee Burial Fund, Inc. \n 2011-CA-000202 05/11/2012 2012 WL 1649799 \n Opinion by Judge Combs; Judges Keller and Stumbo concurred. The Court \n affirmed an order of the circuit court denying appellant’s motion for attorney fees \n brought pursuant to KRS 412.070. The Court held that the circuit court did not \n err in finding that appellant’s cause of action did not result in a recovery that \n benefitted the appellee burial fund or the other members of the fund. The \n settlement reached in the lawsuit did not result in a common benefit - the fund did \n not recover any proceeds from a third-party source; the settlement allowed \n members to withdraw from the fund, which worked as a detriment to the fund; \n and the members who withdrew were far short of a majority of the fund members.","bbox":{"left":0.176503,"top":0.512427,"width":0.702837,"height":0.2114640000000001}},{"text":"III.","bbox":{"left":0.117686,"top":0.741543,"width":0.027842999999999993,"height":0.02098500000000003}},{"text":"CIVIL PROCEDURE \n A. Mullins v. Consol of Kentucky, Inc. \n 2007-CA-001017 05/18/2012 2012 WL 1757907 \n Opinion by Judge Nickell; Chief Judge Taylor and Judge Combs concurred. The \n Court reversed and remanded orders of the circuit court mandating that guardian \n ad litem fees be paid from a court-ordered escrow account. In a case of first \n impression, the Court held that the trial court judgment was unsupported by sound \n legal principles. KRS 453.050 required that the plaintiff directly bear the cost of \n any awarded GAL fees. Furthermore, CR 67.03 implied that the escrow should","bbox":{"left":0.176503,"top":0.741543,"width":0.703945,"height":0.1591990000000001}},{"text":"[1]","bbox":{"left":0.488513,"top":0.9175,"width":0.02300000000000002,"height":0.020212000000000008}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}