stating that "[m]anifestly, the determination by a court that a party may not contradict an admission is strong medicine and should be sparingly administered.... [The rule] 'should be applied with caution because of the variable nature of testimony and because of the ever present possibility of honest mistake' ” [citations omitted]
How later courts described this case
- stating that "[m]anifestly, the determination by a court that a party may not contradict an admission is strong medicine and should be sparingly administered.... [The rule] 'should be applied with caution because of the variable nature of testimony and because of the ever present possibility of honest mistake' ” [citations omitted]
- holding that judicial admissions may be disproved by other evidence and “should be sparingly administered.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILLIAM J. PARKER, Special Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
For some time, the legal profession and the judicial system have been burdened by twin devils — costs and delay. To retry this cause of action at this point in time from the beginning would only compound that curse. The outcome both at the trial level and in the Court of Appeals was proper; the Court of Appeals simply stated the incorrect standard to be applied to reach its result.
There certainly was loose communication by both appellant and appellee as to the name “Allied,” but considering the record as a whole, the “up the ladder” defense was appropriately applied. The claim of Mrs. Terry D. Goldsmith should be barred by KRS 342.090. There were no valid judicial admissions.
I would affirm.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins this dissent.