Wade v. Com.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1957 |
| Citation | 303 S.W.2d 905 |
| Parties | Wayne WADE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Rodes K. Myers, Bowling Green, for appellant.
Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Earle V. Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, a juvenile of the age of sixteen, was brought before the Juvenile Court of Warren County upon a verified petition filed with said Judge pursuant to the provisions of KRS 208.070, wherein it was alleged that appellant came within the purview of KRS Chapter 208 by being drunk in a public place. On July 26, 1956, a hearing was had before the Juvenile Court on the aforementioned petition, and on said date it was ordered and adjudged that appellant be committed to the Department of Welfare, Commonwealth of Kentucky, for an indeterminate period not to exceed the age of twenty-one years, and in this judgment it was directed that the commitment be suspended pending the good behavior of the appellant. On October 11, 1956, the appellant was again before the Juvenile Court on a second verified petition when a hearing was held and it was ordered and adjudged that the appellant be committed to the Department of Welfare, Commonwealth of Kentucky, for an indeterminate period not to exceed the age of twenty-one. From the judgment of October 11, 1956, appellant filed motion for an appeal to the Warren Circuit Court, which was granted on October 13, 1956. A hearing was held in the Circuit Court, and the trial court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
In so doing it was held that the Juvenile Court had divested itself of jurisdiction of the present case by its previous judgment of July 26, 1956, and, the Juvenile Court being without jurisdiction originally, the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to try the case de novo on appeal. Appellant contends that the Juvenile Court retained its jurisdiction by the wording of the judgment of July 26, 1956, and that the Circuit Court's conclusion is in error. The pertinent part of that judgment reads as follows:
Only one question is before this Court. Did the Circuit Court err in denying its jurisdiction on appeal?
Exclusive original jurisdiction of the actions involved here is vested in the Juvenile Court (KRS 208.020). If there is no original jurisdiction below we must agree that the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case de novo on appeal. We must therefore determine whether the Juvenile Court did or did not divest itself of jurisdiction by the first judgment of July 26, 1956.
The Juvenile Court, under KRS 208.200 had three alternatives by which it could dispose of appellant:
(a) Place the child on probation or under supervision in his own home or in a suitable family home or boarding home upon such conditions as the court shall determine until the child reaches the age of twenty-one years;
(b) Commit the child to the custody or guardianship of a private or public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carothers v. Rice
...stated principle, derived from the ancient maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius, is not alien to Kentucky law. See Wade v. Commonwealth, 303 S.W.2d 905 (Ky.1957). The application of this well settled principle to this case militates against judicial creation of a cause of action for defr......
-
Dye v. Thomas More Univ.
... ... exclusion of another”) in interpreting both statutes ... and contracts.” Madding v. Com. , No ... 2001-SC-0570-MR, 2003 WL 22415625, at *5 (Ky. Oct. 23, 2003) ... (citing Burgin v. Forbes , 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d ... 321, 325 (1943); Fiscal Court v. Brady, Ky. , 885 ... S.W.2d 681, 685 (1994), and Wade v. Commonwealth , ... Ky., 303 S.W.2d 905, 907 (1957)). And this ... “maxim” is “often used as an aid in ... arriving at the ... ...
-
Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. D.W.
...omission of another thing is an intentional exclusion. Louisville Water Co. v. Wells, Ky.App., 664 S.W.2d 525 (1984); Wade v. Commonwealth, Ky., 303 S.W.2d 905 (1957). Hence, we must view the omission of "of the court" when referring to the judgment in RCr 11.42(10) as intentional. Likewise......
-
Timmons v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...and not of substantive law" for the courts to apply only if the intention of the statute is unclear. And, in Wade v. Commonwealth, 303 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Ky.1957), the court went so far as to quote Justice Taft explaining the "narrow and limited manner" in which courts should employ expressio......