Opinion ID: 1761033
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pulaski Circuit Court had Jurisdiction to Issue a Statewide Injunction.

Text: No party disputes that the Pulaski Circuit Court had the subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this type of declaratory judgment or injunctive relief case. The DOC argues, however, that the Pulaski Circuit Court lacked the authority to issue a statewide injunction. We disagree. Section 109 of Kentucky's Constitution assures that Kentucky has a unitary court system. Section 109 states that all judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested exclusively in one Court of Justice[,] which shall be divided into a Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals, [and] a trial court of general jurisdiction known as the Circuit Court. ... The court shall constitute a unified judicial system for operation and administration. We have recently held that [constitutionally speaking, Kentucky has but one circuit court[;] and all circuit judges are members of that court and enjoy equal capacity to act throughout the state. [26] The DOC appears to contend that only the Franklin Circuit Court has the power to issue a statewide injunction. We do not doubt that the Franklin Circuit Court, generally speaking, has such authority; but the jurisdiction of the Franklin Circuit Court is not at issue. No party has cited any statute or regulation that required this type of action to have been brought only in the Franklin Circuit Court. The lack of such authority is important because the General Assembly could easily have required this type of action to be brought in the Franklin Circuit Court, as it has done in other types of actions. [27] Instead, the General Assembly expressly authorized any court of record of this Commonwealth having general jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment. [28] And, as already noted, the circuit courts of the Commonwealth, including the Pulaski Circuit Court, are the courts of general jurisdiction.... [29] Although it now questions the Pulaski Circuit Court's authority to issue a statewide injunction, the DOC does not contradict the Pulaski Circuit Court's statement that Thompson has conceded that both jurisdiction and venue are proper. In sum, we have a situation in which the Pulaski Circuit Court had jurisdiction, either expressly or by waiver, over both the subject matter and the parties involved in this action. Also, there is no question regarding whether venue was proper since, as stated before, the DOC conceded any venue issue. Perhaps most importantly, we have been pointed to nothing that would have required this action to have been brought in the Franklin Circuit Court. [30] To the contrary, it is plain that our Constitution provides that there is only one circuit court, which leads to the logical conclusion that in the absence of express authority to the contrary, each geographic division of the one statewide circuit court has co-equal abilities and powers. Additionally, it seems that Commonwealth's Attorney Montgomery would not have been able to bring this action in his official capacity in any court lying outside the circuit from which he was elected. [31] So we conclude that the Pulaski Circuit Court had powers co-extensive with the Franklin Circuit Court or any other appropriate circuit court to adjudicate this matter and to grant a declaratory judgment or injunction, statewide or otherwise. [32]