· 6/11/1915
Hunt v. Bullington
Citations
- 165 Ky. 384
- 176 S.W. 1156
- 1915 Ky. LEXIS 522
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Defendant’s interpretation of Section 2341(2) conflicts with the plain, unambiguous text of the CCTA which imposes no ‘in a single transaction requirement.’”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Clay
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.