Court Opinion

ID: 9779276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:42:15.072715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:24.674461
License: Public Domain

STEINFELD, Justice
(dissenting).
Appellants Fred Hines, et al. appealed to the circuit court without bringing to that court, as a part of the record on that appeal, the land-use plan referred to by the witness Frank Thompson. The same parties appealed to this court without attempting to include in the record that document on which they bottom their entire case to show that the change of zoning made by the fiscal court was not authorized by the comprehensive plan.
Have we overruled such cases as Steele’s Adm’r v. Hillman Land & Iron Co., Ky., 114 S.W. 311 (1908), in which it was written, “The absence of evidence upon any material point is as fatal to him who has the onus as the absence of all evidence would be”? I believe we should hold that we cannot consider appellants’ contention that the action of the fiscal court was not harmonious with the comprehensive plan.
It is my opinion that a dangerous precedent is set by the procedure fashioned by the opinion of the court in authorizing the complaining litigant to fill a gap at this late date in the litigation. I respectfully dissent.