Commonwealth v. Blair

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the defendants failed to preserve their directed verdict arguments because they failed to renew their motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence
• holding the defendants failed to preserve their directed verdict arguments because they failed to renew their motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence
• requiring motion for directed verdict to preserve sufficiency of the evidence challenge for appellate review
• \Judicial consistency must be observed in order to maintain a responsible and efficient court system.\
• “Judicial consistency must be observed in order to maintain a responsible and efficient court system.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ronnie Lee Maupin v. Steve Smith, Superintendent, Kentucky State Reformatory and Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General of Kentucky
  Sixth Circuit· 1986-03-05· cited 796×
• Osborne v. Keeney
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2012-12-20· cited 145×
• Garcia H. Simpson v. Emitt L. Sparkman
  Sixth Circuit· 1996-08-23· cited 81×
• Matheney v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-04-04· cited 67×
• Dyer v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1991-09-26· cited 47×
• Greene v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-05-18· cited 38×
• Richard Carpenter, Stephen Borders, (81-5179), Jerome C. Blair, (81-5516) v. Charles M. Leibson, (81-5179 & 81-5516)
  Sixth Circuit· 1982-07-23· cited 9×
• Blair v. Kentucky; And Carpenter Et Al. v. Kentucky
  Supreme Court· 1980-11-03· cited 5×
• Commonwealth v. Maratty
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1980-04-01
• Commonwealth v. Blincoe
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1980-04-01
• Rowe v. Commonwealth
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 1980-06-13
• State of Iowa v. Randy Allen Crawford
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2022-03-18