After a three-week hiatus stemming from a combination of technology problems (inability to access the admin page in order to post new content after the SCOKYBLOG site moved to a new server) and a rapid surge in workload occasioned by a surge of a different type, i.e., the kind referred to by our Commander-in-Chief and that resulted in my law partner’s receipt of deployment orders from the Marine Corps reserves, SCOKYBLOG’s EiC is back in the proverbial saddle. With any luck at all, we’ll be able to catch up on more than a month of activity in the next week or so.

Listed below are the ten cases to which the SCOKY granted discretionary review in April. The hyperlink on the name will take you to the Opinion rendered by the Court of Appeals.

Sprint Communications Company, LP v. Leggett (2005-SC-1203-DG)

Sommers v. Commonwealth (2006-SC-0529-DG)

Morgan v. Scott (2006-SC-0693-DG)

Scott v. Moore Pontiac, Buick, GMC, Inc. (2006-SC-0701-DG)

Sebastian-Voor Properties, LLC v. LFUCG (2006-SC-0732-DG)

Henry v. Commonwealth (2006-SC-0767-DG)

Commonwealth v. Black (2006-SC-0781-DG)

Horvath v. Horvath (2006-SC-0837-DG)

Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2006-SC-0856-DG)

TruServ Corp. v. Flegles, Inc. (2007-SC-00155-DG)

In its Autry v. Western Kentucky University / WKU Student Life Foundation v. Autry Opinion, the SCOKY took care of two cases in which it had previously granted DR. Ten (10) granted minus two (2) resolved leaves a net increase of eight (8) DR cases. Added to the previous “DR-deficit” for 2007, the SCOKY’s “DR-deficit” currently stands at twenty-six (26) cases.

In response to a question that was emailed backchannel, SCOKYBLOG’s running tally of “new DR grants vs. resolved old DR grants” does not take into account those cases in which the Court grants DR, vacates the opinion below, and remands for one reason or another (a/k/a “GVR” or “grant, vacate, and remand”) in a single Order. That’s a judgment call on our part that a GVR is different in substance from a DG case.