Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

349 S.W.2d 831

Whitaker v. Bradley

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided September 29, 1961

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1961-09-29

Applies KY 452 § 452.470

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1961-09-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2016

4 state decisions

20196119701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BIRD, Chief Justice.

¶1This action originated in the Court of Appeals.

¶2William Gilbert Whitaker seeks to prohibit the trial of a divorce action in the Fayette Circuit Court. He contends that venue is properly in the Madison Circuit Court and that the Fayette Circuit Court is therefore without jurisdiction. KRS 452.470 provides that an action for divorce or alimony must be brought in the county where the wife usually resides. The petitioner contends that his wife filed her action in the Fayette Circuit Court at a time when she was still residing with him at the place of his residence in Madison County.

¶3It appears from the record that Mrs. Whitaker left Madison County on February 6, 1961, with part of her personal belongings and that she on the same day rented quarters in Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky. On the 10th day of February she filed her action for divorce in the Fay-ette Circuit Court. The petitioner, contending that the Fayette Circuit Court was without jurisdiction for want of venue, filed a motion to dismiss. After hearing testimony on the motion the Fayette Circuit Court held that Mrs. Whitaker was a bona fide resident of Fayette County when she filed her action in the Fayette Circuit Court.

¶4Upon examination of the record and the cases thereunto pertaining we have concluded that the Fayette Circuit Court properly overruled the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. It follows therefore that the petition for writ of prohibition must be denied.

¶5We feel obliged to commend counsel for the excellent manner in which this case has been presented.

¶6The petition is denied.

/349/sw2d/831 · .json · Public domain