Skip to main content
· 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 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.