RENDERED: APRIL 23, 2021; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2020-CA-0115-MR

JIM KING APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

v. HONORABLE JUDITH E. MCDONALD-BURKMAN, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 16-CI-003013

BEVERAGE WAREHOUSE, LLC

AND GREGORY ANASTAS APPELLEES

OPINION

DISMISSING

**   **  **

BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; GOODWINE AND KRAMER,

JUDGES.

CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE: Jim King, the former ABC (Alcoholic Beverage 

Control) Administrator for the City of St. Matthews, appeals from orders of the 

Jefferson Circuit Court which set aside a previous grant of summary judgment to 

King and held that he is not entitled to qualified official immunity from claims of 

negligence in granting a liquor license. Having reviewed the record and the 
-2-

applicable law, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal,

and consequently, it must be dismissed. 

Factual and Procedural Background

In February 2009, Liquor Barn filed a public notice of intent to apply 

for a liquor license to operate a retail package liquor store in St. Matthews, a 

fourth-class city located in the Louisville metropolitan area. The proposed location 

of the new store was across the road from another package liquor retailer, 

Beverage Warehouse. 

A St. Matthews ordinance in effect at that time required a minimum 

distance of 700 feet between two retail package liquor stores. The ordinance 

prescribed the following method for measuring the distance:

All distances referred to in this ordinance shall be 

measured along the right-of-way of existing public 

vehicular roadways from a point on any such right-ofway line nearest the entrance of any such existing 

premises licensed for such sales to a point on any such 

right-of-way line nearest the entrance of the proposed 

licensed premises. All intersecting right-of-way lines 

shall be measured at right angles and where it is 

necessary in such measurement to cross a right-of-way 

the measurement shall be made at right angles.

St. Matthews Ordinances § 111.15(E).

At that time, King was serving as the St. Matthews ABC 

Administrator with the same functions with respect to city licenses and regulations 

as the state Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Kentucky Revised Statutes 
-3-

(KRS) 241.190. KRS 243.450(1)(b) at that time provided that an applicant for a 

license had to comply with the regulations of the city administrator. KRS 241.190 

provided that no regulation adopted by the city administrator could be less 

stringent than the state statutes relating to alcoholic beverage control or the ABC 

Board’s regulations. Within this framework, it was King’s task to ensure that 

Liquor Barn’s application complied with the relevant St. Matthews ordinances. 

Accordingly, he instructed his zoning and enforcement officer to make a 

preliminary unofficial measurement between the front doors of the Beverage 

Warehouse and the proposed Liquor Barn location, using the method set forth in 

the ordinance. The measurement indicated a distance of less than 700 feet between 

the two establishments. 

According to Jim Anastas, the owner and operator of Beverage 

Warehouse, when he contacted King to express his opposition to the proposed 

Liquor Barn site, King told him that the location would violate the St. Matthews’ 

ordinance and assured him the only way Liquor Barn would get the license would 

be over “his dead body.” In a letter dated March 10, 2009, King informed Liquor 

Barn’s legal counsel, Kenneth S. Handmaker, that the proposed location was too 

close to Beverage Warehouse. 

Handmaker responded with a letter, in which he accused King of 

prejudging the case before the application for a license was even filed, in violation 
-4-

of Liquor Barn’s basic due process rights. He asserted that a professional engineer 

had determined, using “legally established methods of measurement,” that the 

distance between the two stores was 830 feet.

In his deposition testimony, King testified that he spoke with the St. 

Matthews City Attorney about Handmaker’s letter but could not recall what was 

said. King also contacted the state ABC for guidance regarding how to measure 

between the stores. He testified, “I did call the state and said, ‘We have an 

ordinance about 700 feet distance, and can you give me any assistance on how to 

measure that?’ And their response was, ‘I can send you a copy of Bambi Bar’s 

appeal court answer’ or whatever ‘on how you’ -- or ‘how it’s to be measured.’ 

And that’s – when I got that, I read it, and I looked at the thing. I had the distance, 

measured it according to the [Bambi Bar case].” 

The so-called “Bambi Bar case” to which King was referring 

addressed the proper method of measuring between two establishments for 

purposes of granting a liquor license. See Louisville/Jefferson County Metro 

Government v. Commonwealth, No. 2005-CA-000343-MR, 2006 WL 3524350 

(Ky. App. Dec. 8, 2006). The statute at issue in that case, KRS 241.075, was 

similar to the St. Matthews’ ordinance in prohibiting the issuance of a retail 

package liquor or retail drink liquor license to a business located 700 feet or less 

from a similar establishment in certain areas. But the method of measurement set 
-5-

forth in the statute differed substantially from that in the St. Matthews ordinance. 

It provided: 

The distance between location of similar establishments 

. . . shall be measured by following the shortest route 

of ordinary pedestrian travel along public 

thoroughfares from the nearest point of any present 

location of any such similar place of business to the 

nearest point of any proposed location of any such place 

of business. The measurement shall be taken from the 

entrance of the existing licensed premises to the entrance 

of any proposed location.

KRS 241.075(3) (emphasis supplied).1

In the “Bambi Bar” case, this Court construed the phrase “the shortest 

route of ordinary pedestrian travel” to mean the shortest legal route between the 

establishments using a marked crosswalk. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro 

Government v. Commonwealth, 2006 WL 3524350 at *3. 

In 2009, the Kentucky Supreme Court addressed KRS 241.075(3) 

again in the so-called “Molly Malone’s” case and reiterated that “the shortest route 

of ordinary pedestrian travel” required the measurement to “be taken along a route 

that is both lawful and safe.” Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. 

TDC Group, LLC, 283 S.W.3d 657, 661 (Ky. 2009).

 

1 This version of KRS 241.075 was later found to be unconstitutional for reasons which do not 

affect this Opinion and was repealed. See Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. 

O'Shea’s-Baxter, LLC, 438 S.W.3d 379, 386 (Ky. 2014) (holding that the statute was special 

legislation which violated Sections 59 and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution).
-6-

According to King, when he used this method to measure between the 

Beverage Warehouse and the Liquor Barn sites, he found that more than 700 feet 

separated the stores. King approved Liquor Barn’s application on April 15, 2009 

and the requisite state liquor licenses were issued on October 15, 2009.

Meanwhile, on February 23, 2009, Beverage Warehouse had filed a 

formal protest with the ABC on the basis that the proposed Liquor Barn license 

was in violation of the St. Matthews ordinance. The ABC Board declined to hear 

the case. Beverage Warehouse appealed the decision to the Franklin Circuit Court 

which ruled that Beverage Warehouse was entitled to a hearing before the Board. 

On appeal, this Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court and remanded the case 

to the Board for a hearing. Beverage Warehouse, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of 

Alcoholic Beverage Control, 382 S.W.3d 34, 46 (Ky. App. 2011).

On remand, the Board conducted an extensive hearing and found that 

the distance between Beverage Warehouse and Liquor Barn was less than 700 feet, 

whether it was measured following the method in KRS 241.075(3) or St. 

Matthews’ ordinance. It concluded that there was at least one safe and lawful 

pedestrian route and at least one safe and lawful vehicular route between the two 

stores measuring less than 700 feet and held that the issuance of the liquor package 

licenses to Liquor Barn violated both the state statute and the city ordinance. 

Specifically, as to King, the Board rejected Liquor Barn’s argument that King had 
-7-

acted within the scope of his duties erroneously but reasonably in interpreting the 

ordinance or the statute and that Liquor Barn had relied upon his error in good faith 

and was therefore entitled to invoke the defensive doctrines of honest error and 

equitable estoppel. The Board’s order stated in pertinent part as follows: 

Here, Mr. King did not misinterpret the [St. Matthews] 

Ordinance – he admittedly ignored it altogether. He 

testified he thought it did not apply. He reached this 

decision on his own by interpreting KRS 241.075 and the 

applicability of the Molly Malone case without the advice 

of available St. Matthews counsel. He instead relied on 

the advice of Liquor Barn’s attorney Mr. Handmaker. 

Even if Mr. King was not just caving in to pressure from 

Liquor Barn, there is nothing reasonable about his 

decision not to follow the law that he admitted he was 

required to enforce as the administrator, nor can he be 

said to have been acting in good faith by so proceeding 

without counsel and in the face of Liquor Barn’s 

prodding and threats. Finally, Liquor Barn has not 

shown that it relied upon Mr. King’s action in good faith. 

. . . There was a lack of good faith on the part of Mr. 

King and a lack of good faith reliance, not to mention 

unclean hands on the part of Liquor Barn. The Board 

finds the doctrines of honest error and equitable estoppel 

are not intended to be applied to a situation like this 

where Liquor Barn had knowledge the license could not 

be issued due to the Ordinance or KRS 241.075 before it 

ever applied for a license, participated in a plan to avoid 

compliance with the Ordinance and KRS 241.075, 

threatened the administrator with repercussions if the 

license was not issued, and took a calculated business 

risk to spend money on the premises so that it could later 

claim the status quo should be maintained due to the 

significant expenditure of money despite the violations. 

Record (“R.”) at 1206-07.
-8-

Liquor Barn appealed the Board’s decision to the Franklin Circuit 

Court and then to this Court. Meanwhile, the Liquor Barn store, which had been 

closed for several months, was sold. In October 17, 2015, Liquor Barn voluntarily 

dismissed its appeal.

On June 28, 2016, Beverage Warehouse and Anastas filed suit against 

Liquor Barn, its former owner, Robert Rosenstein, the City of St. Matthews, and 

King, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as the ABC 

Administrator for the City of St. Matthews. The complaint alleged that King had 

conspired with Liquor Barn and Rosenstein to have the Liquor Barn license issued 

illegally and raised claims including civil conspiracy, negligence and/or negligence 

per se, violation of a statute, and malfeasance and/or nonfeasance. The complaint 

sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss which were denied in an 

order entered on January 26, 2017. The trial court held that St. Matthews and King 

could not invoke the Claims Against Local Governments Act, KRS 65.200 et seq., 

nor the doctrine of qualified official immunity. In reference to King, the trial court 

outlined the test for qualified official immunity and stated: 

KRS 243.450 required the denial of an application if it 

did not comply with all the regulations, including the 700 

foot rule. Either it complied or it did not. Furthermore, 

the ABC found King had not acted in good faith and 

“there is nothing reasonable about his decision not to 

follow the law.” This lack of good faith prevents St. 
-9-

Matthews or King from being immune to the claims 

asserted.

R. 286. King and St. Matthews did not to bring an interlocutory appeal from this 

ruling.

In March 2019, King and St. Matthews filed a motion for summary 

judgment which did not raise immunity defenses. The co-defendants, Liquor Barn 

and Rosenstein simultaneously renewed a previously filed motion for summary 

judgment. Following oral arguments, the trial court granted summary judgment to 

all the defendants on June 27, 2019. It held with respect to King that, “he 

conducted himself in a manner consistent with his duties as ABC Commissioner 

[of St. Matthews] by contacting [state] ABC personnel to learn the appropriate 

means of measuring the distance between the two establishments.” R. at 1271.

On July 8, 2019, Liquor Barn and Anastas filed a motion to alter, 

amend, or vacate the grant of summary judgment, arguing under Kentucky Rules 

of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.04 that the trial court’s opinion contained factual and 

legal errors and omissions. Specifically, in regard to King, the motion cited the 

findings of the ABC Board that the distance between the stores, measured using 

either the statutory or ordinance method, was under 700 feet, that King’s call to the 

state ABC did not excuse him from complying with the St. Matthews ordinance, 

and there was no evidence that the ABC clerk even knew there was such an 
-10-

ordinance. The motion argued that the statute and the ordinance imposed an 

obligation that was ministerial rather than discretionary. 

St. Matthews and King responded that the motion did not meet the 

requirements for relief under CR 59.05 and argued that the findings of the Board 

were not binding on St. Matthews and King, who were not parties to the action 

before the Board, which had addressed only the propriety of granting the liquor 

license, not the claims in the complaint of civil conspiracy and negligence. The 

plaintiffs replied that there was direct and circumstantial evidence in the record, 

including testimony before the Board and the Board’s findings, that could be 

considered by a jury and therefore precluded a grant of summary judgment.

The trial court denied the motion except insofar as it related to the 

negligence claim against the City of St. Matthews and King and entered an order 

on September 16, 2019, setting aside the summary judgment granted to these 

defendants. In regard to King, the trial court cited the well-established rule that “a 

public officer who knowingly or negligently fails or refuses to execute a 

ministerial act, which the law positively charges him to carry out, may 

be compelled to answer in damages to any person to whom the performance was 

owing to the extent of the injury proximately caused by the nonperformance.” 

Upchurch v. Clinton County, 330 S.W.2d 428, 431 (Ky. 1959). The trial court 

ruled that a jury could find that King failed to perform a ministerial duty when,
-11-

instead of measuring the distance as mandated by the ordinance, he contacted the 

state ABC and construed the Molly Malone’s case on his own without consulting 

the St. Matthews city attorney.

 King then filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate, raising the defense 

of qualified official immunity based on the court’s previous ruling. The motion 

argued that King’s decision regarding which source to use in determining how to 

measure between the two stores was a discretionary act, and he was consequently 

protected by official immunity from the negligence claim. 

The trial court denied the motion in an order entered on January 6, 

2020. It held that St. Matthews and King had not met the standard for relief under 

CR 59.05 because the issues raised in their motion had been before the court on 

multiple previous occasions. It further reiterated, citing Godman v. City of Fort 

Wright, 234 S.W.3d 362 (Ky. App. 2007), and Wales v. Pullen, 390 S.W.3d 160 

(Ky. App. 2012), that a statutory duty was a ministerial duty and that it was King’s 

ministerial duty to measure the distance between the two liquor stores in 

accordance with the method set forth in the ordinance. Because King chose 

instead to follow the advice given by the ABC, the trial court held that a jury could 

find he had breached his ministerial duty. 

King filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying his 

motion to alter, amend, or vacate and then amended the notice of appeal to include 
-12-

the underlying order of September 16, 2019, which set aside the grant of summary 

judgment as to St. Matthews and King.

2

Analysis

As a preliminary matter, we address the appellees’ argument that 

King’s invocation of official immunity was improperly presented before the trial 

court and inadequately preserved for appellate review. As described above, King 

had raised the defense of official immunity unsuccessfully earlier in the 

proceedings and did not file an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s January 

26, 2017 order. The appellees argue that he is consequently foreclosed from 

raising the issue again. We agree.

Generally, the “denial of a motion for summary judgment is . . . not 

appealable because of its interlocutory nature[.]” Transportation Cabinet, Bureau 

of Highways, Commonwealth of Ky. v. Leneave, 751 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Ky. App. 

1988). An exception is made for an order denying a substantial claim of absolute 

immunity or qualified official immunity, which is immediately appealable. 

Harrod v. Caney, 547 S.W.3d 536, 540 (Ky. App. 2018). 

The extent of our review in this type of appeal is strictly limited “to 

the issue of immunity, and no substantive issues.” Baker v. Fields, 543 S.W.3d 

 

2 King’s first notice of appeal is taken from the order denying his motion to alter, amend, or 

vacate and gives January 3, 2020, as the date of that order. The record shows the order was 

actually entered on January 6, 2020. His amended notice of appeal clarifies this distinction and 

also adds the September 16, 2019 order.
-13-

575, 578 (Ky. 2018). The Kentucky Supreme Court has specifically held “that an 

appellate court reviewing an interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s determination of 

a defendant’s immunity from suit is limited to the specific issue of whether

immunity was properly denied, nothing more.” Id.

In its order of January 26, 2017, the trial court expressly held that 

immunity was not available to King or St. Matthews. This ruling was immediately 

appealable. Harrod, supra. The purpose of allowing such an instant, interlocutory 

appeal is “to address substantial claims of right which would be rendered moot by 

litigation and thus are not subject to meaningful review in the ordinary course 

following a final judgment.” Baker, 543 S.W.3d at 577 (citation omitted). For this 

reason, the Kentucky Supreme Court has stated that “orders denying claims of 

immunity . . . should be subject to prompt appellate review.” Id. at 577-78

(emphasis supplied). 

King’s appeal is taken from orders entered on January 6, 2020, and 

September 16, 2019, long after the dispositive order of January 26, 2017. These 

later orders did not serve to invoke or to extend the appellate jurisdiction of this 

Court. Because we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal, it must be 

dismissed. 
-14-

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, King’s appeal from the orders of the 

Jefferson Circuit Court is dismissed. 

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Derek Miles

R. Thad Keal

Michelle Turner

Prospect, Kentucky 

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:

Chadwick N. Gardner

Prospect, Kentucky

F. Larkin Fore

Louisville, Kentucky