In the Interest of X.L.M. v. Juvenile Officer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that complaints made during staff meeting to supervisor about supervisor’s trespass on employee’s private property was not protected activity under Act
• tacitly recognizing that repeated disclosures are not protected under the Whistleblower Act since KRS 61.103(1)(a) requires a disclosure “bring[] to light facts not otherwise known to the recipient”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).