Skip to main content
· 12/4/1923

Courtney v. Dunning

Citations

  • 201 Ky. 242
  • 256 S.W. 411
  • 1923 Ky. LEXIS 276

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that entity was successor where there was “significant cross-over in the services formerly offered by [the predecessor entity] and now offered” by the successor entity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clay

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.