Gross v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claims alleging that convictions were obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights only fit the grounds of CR 60.02(f)
• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding a five-year delay between the final judgment and the CR 60.02 motion exceeded a reasonable time
• holding no abuse of discretion in finding 5 years as \unreasonable\ under CR 60.02
• explaining that “[Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure] 60.02 was enacted as a substitute for the common law writ of coram nobis”
• explaining that “[Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure] 60.02 was enacted as a substitute for the common law writ of co-ram nobis”
• recognizing CR 60.02 as part of 19 Kentucky’s organized structure for post-conviction review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).