Kentucky Supreme Court· 8/23/2007

Nordike v. Nordike

Citations

231 S.W.3d 733
2007 Ky. LEXIS 165
2007 WL 2403394

How courts have described this case

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

indicating challenge to particular case jurisdiction could be raised as an affirmative defense
referring to concepts such as failure to state a claim and limitations periods as jurisdictional fact issues while acknowledging courts discuss these issues “in terms of their jurisdictional effect, although without specific reference to particular-case jurisdiction”
declining “to render an advisory opinion on an issue that may or may not occur in the future” that was not decided on appeal, because such issues are best left to the trial court’s discretion
\It is a fundamental tenet of Kentucky jurisprudence that courts cannot decide matters that have not yet ripened into concrete disputes.\
“The Court will not render advisory opinions or consider matters which may or may not occur in the future.”
“It is a fundamental tenet of Kentucky jurisprudence that courts cannot decide matters that have not yet ripened into concrete disputes. Courts are not permitted to render advisory opinions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lambert, Cunningham, Minton, Noble, Scott, Schroder

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.