[(stamp) 1998 AUG 28 A 11:45
HOPKINS COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
BY (SIGNATURE), DC]

Supreme Court of Kentucky

        98-SC-60-D
       (95-CA-2117)
BY	

THOMAS CARTER PADGETT	MOVANT


V.	                     HOPKINS CIRCUIT COURT
                            NO. 92-CI-444

LAURA VANNOY PADGETT,
MICHAEL HALLYBURTON,
and DONNA NICHOLS	RESPONDENT 

                ORDER

The following rulings are made, on the various 
motions pending before this Court in the above-styled action.

The "Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice and
Movant's Notice of Intent" is denied as moot. The Court of 
Appeals opinion dealt with three separate appellate cases. 
The motion for discretionary review specifically dealt with 
only one of those actions. The "Motion for Dismissal with 
Prejudice" requests this Court to dismiss the proceedings 
concerning the other two appellate actions. However, those 
two actions were never properly brought before this Court, by 
means of a motion for discretionary review. As a result, the 
jurisdiction of this Court was never invoked, concerning those 
two actions. Thus, there is no need for this Court to dismiss 
those two actions, as they were never put before the Court.


[Page 2]


The "Supplement to Discretionary Review Correction 
and Motion to Show Cause" is denied. The "Supplement to 
Discretionary Review Correction" seeks to place before this 
Court a draft of an order which is not found within the trial 
court record. This Court is a court of record. As such, it 
wold be inappropriate to incorporate such a draft order into 
the record.

The "Motion to Show Cause" is also denied.

The "Motion for Oral Argument" is denied, in that 
this case is now before this Court on a motion for 
discretionary review. Oral arguments are not heard, at this 
stage of the proceedings.

The "Notice in Change of Filing" is denied as moot. 
It requests this Court to alter the movant's "Motion for 
Dismissal with Prejudice" (discussed above) to being a "Motion 
for Dismissal Without Prejudice." As mentioned above, the two 
Court of Appeals actions (to which this last motion relates) 
were never properly put before this Court, by means of a 
motion for discretionary review. Thus, a motion to dismiss 
them is neither necessary nor proper.
The motion for discretionary review is denied. 
ENTERED August 26, 1998.

                           (Signature Robert F. Stephens)
                           Chief Justice