Reposted by Sean Marotta
Sean Marotta
@smmarotta.bsky.social
6.6K followers 617 following 4.5K posts
Partner with Hogan Lovells Cadwalader's Appellate group. Banner image by Art Lien. My GC wants you to know that my postings are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my firm, clients, or personnel.
![It is an oft-repeated statement that "[t]he appellants will not be permitted to feed one can of worms to the trial judge and another to the appellate court." Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 544 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky. 1976), overruled on other grounds by, Wilburn v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 321, 326-29 (Ky. 2010). Some version of this "can of worms" phrase appears in fifty published and 230 unpublished Kentucky opinions.[15] There are, of course, many additional opinions not using this specific phrase that rely on the basic, black-letter-law concept behind it, that appellate courts do not have the authority to review issues that were not raised before or decided by the trial court. See, e.g., Reg'l Jail Auth. v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky. 1989) (citing Kentucky cases for this concept which were published between 1961 and 1938).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:b2zlnxrfackjw5h3lbemyqg5/bafkreigjxyiiufk27of7hepnfjkommqvunbyqhehtstb6pl6z2ezmwa224)
