Court Opinion

ID: 9722288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:23:30.157556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:33.423439
License: Public Domain

BRATCHER, District Judge
(concurring in part).
I concur with the majority’s holding that KRS § 376.270 is not an infringement of constitutionally guaranteed rights. However, I respectfully disagree *499with the legal reasoning followed by my brother judges in reaching their decision. The Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement on creditor’s remedies, Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Company, No. 72-6160, 416 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (May 13, 1974) is, in my opinion, a more correct application of constitutional reasoning of this question than those expressed in its earlier decisions. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) and Sniadaeh v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969). In addressing myself to this issue, it is not my intention to engage in an extensive discussion of the constitutional ramifications of the complained-of statute, but only to reaffirm my earlier impressions of this issue as expressed in more detail in my dissenting opinion of April 11, 1974. For the reasons therein stated, the instant action should be dismissed.