Cases from cite.case.law:

. . . Id., col.6 11.42-47, col.7 11.12-15. . . .

. . . From November 10 to November 11, 2014, the price of Vivint’s stock declined from $14.74 to $11.42 per . . .

. . . 'Manns’s argument treats Grubb as definitive, but by the time of his trial (and his RCr 11.42), Grubb . . .

. . . Cr. 11.42(10)). That time has now passed. . . .

. . . Id. at 68 (Page ID #866); see also R. 1-8 (Rule 11.42 Mot.) (Page ID #53). . . . The Rule 11.42 motion sought relief based on Stilt-ner’s significant cognitive impairments. . . . R. 84 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g at 68) (Page ID #866); see also R. 1-8 (Rule 11.42 Mot.) . . . The Magistrate Judge also noted that, as a result of Blair’s Rule 11.42 motion, the state assigned a . . . R. 84 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g at 68) (Page ID #866); see also R. 1-8 (Rule 11.42 Mot.) . . . In December 2004, inmate David Blair helped Stiltner file a motion under Rule 11.42 of the Kentucky Rules . . . see also id. at 2, Page ID 1101 (noting that Burke filed a supplemental pleading to Stiltner’s Rule 11.42 . . . When the state court denied Stiltner’s Rule 11.42 motion, Burke filed a notice of appeal and licensed . . . at 2, Page ID 1101 (noting that the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the denied of Stiltner’s Rule 11.42 . . .

. . . Ex. 3 at 11.42:5-18.) . . .

. . . P. 11.42(3). . . . Unlike Rule 11.42, Rule 60.02(f) contains no bar on successive motions. . . . It first interpreted Thomas’s filing as separate motions: one under Rule 11.42 and another under Rule . . . Kentucky Rule 11.42(3) says nothing of the sort here. . . . P. 11.42(3). . . .

. . . filing a motion to vacate and set aside his sentence pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . . According to Brizendine, the deadline for filing Rule 11.42 motions for collateral review claims expired . . . P. 11.42(10) (requiring a motion to vacate to be “filed within three years after the judgment becomes . . . because Briz-endine’s pro se pleadings to that point were insufficient on their face to satisfy Rule 11.42 . . . supplemental memorandum, Brizendine’s pleadings failed to satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 11.42 . . .

. . . Id. col.31 11.42-45. . . .

. . . Manual for Complex Litigation § 11.42; Federal Judicial Center, Civil Litigation Management Manual, Ch . . .

. . . SEARCHED SEARCHES Checkpoint 35 5.18% 22.27% Driving While 6 20.00% 19.07% Impaired Investigatory 61 11.42% . . . For example, Officer Dockery testified that 11.42% of stopped Hispanics were searched for investigatory . . .

. . . In 2006, Woolbright filed a pro se motion under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 to vacate his . . . The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Rule 11.42 petition, Woolbright v. . . . None of these claims were raised in Woolbright’s pro se Rule 11.42 petition or his subsequent appeal. . . . These three IATC claims were raised in the Rule 11.42 petition but not raised on post-conviction appeal . . . court has previously noted the strong Kentucky preference for IATC claims to be presented in a Rule 11.42 . . .

. . . specification provides an example of a “source data stream” as a “document/file.” '561 Patent col.l 11.42 . . . ones of said source data strings and generating related target data strings.... '939 Patent col. 6 11.42 . . .

. . . average of 64 hours per week as Store Manager and received an average hourly wage between $11.00 and $11.42 . . . payment, Lord earned compensation, which when computed on an hourly basis, averaged between $11.00 and $11.42 . . .

. . . Id. col. 1 11.42 — 45, (Docket No. 111-7 at 8). . . . Caster col. 1 11.42-45, (Docket No. 111-7 at 8). . . .

. . . be activated using “unmodified existing standard retail point-of-sale device[s].” '608 patent col.18 11.42 . . .

. . . matching system for primary product orders submitted by ordering party stakeholders____” Id. col.16 11.42 . . .

. . . second trial in a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . .

. . . environment itself encompasses two-dimensional computer generated environments. ’764 patent col.15 11.42 . . .

. . . Id. col. 5 11.42-45. Claims 1, 2, and 13 are representative. Claim 1 reads: 1. . . .

. . . Id. at col.9 11.42-50. . . . Id. at col.9 11.42-50. . . .

. . . refers to “the radial distance between adjacent grooves.” '855 Patent col.5 11.28-29; '847 Patent col.6 11.42 . . . -44; '115 Patent col.6 11.42-44; '455 Patent col.6 11.39-41. . . .

. . . Id. col.l 11.42-60. . . .

. . . account balance information, and 2) a computer that can track the account balance. '720 patent eol.65 11.42 . . . being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said exchange institution. '720 Patent col.65 11.42 . . . See, e.g., '720 Patent col.65 11.42-48 (“A data processing system ... comprising a data storage unit . . .

. . . post-conviction motion in state court seeking relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (“RCr”) 11.42 . . . post-conviction procedures do not provide “rudimentary process”, Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . . RCr. 11.42(5). . . . Instead, the state court held that although the issue was raised in Caudill's RCr 11.42 motion, the trial . . .

. . . Id. col.9 11.42-43. . . .

. . . Proc. 11.42(5) (2011); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 930.7(C) (West 2008); Mich. Rule Crim. . . .

. . . meet[] the biocompatibility test if none ... show a greater than mild reactivity.” '245 patent col.42 11.42 . . .

. . . Id. at col.4 11.42-55. . . .

. . . Petitioner then filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . .

. . . Id. col.3 11.42-43 (emphasis added). . . .

. . . Appellant’s Br. 27 (citing '885 patent col.36 11.42-44). . . .

. . . by “determining whether the ratio is within a range of inclusively 0.9 to 1.1.” '091 patent col.22 11.42 . . .

. . . Approximately 11.42% of the Libertas CDO’s assets were backed by New Century loans. (Id.) . . .

. . . 6, which outputs demultiplexed wavelengths X.1-XN on individual optical fibers.” '772 Patent, col.2 11.42 . . .

. . . Id. col.42 11.42-44. . . . the cultures treated with [the polymer] show[s] a greater than mild reactivity.” '245 Patent col.42 11.42 . . .

. . . next moved to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 . . . question: does the Baze rule, which the Kentucky courts discarded during the pendency of West’s RCr 11.42 . . . In other words, the Baze rule prohibited a defendant from using RCr 11.42 to reliti-gate “[a]n issue . . . — reversed course and allowed the defendant to present his ineffective-assistance claims in an RCr 11.42 . . . In Leonard, the defendant’s RCr 11.42 proceeding concluded long before the 2006 Martin decision. 279 . . .

. . . Sjtoring the information received from one of the at least one originating processors.... ”); id. col.20 11.42 . . .

. . . See, e.g., id. col. 17 11.42-44 (“The RF receiver automatically transfers the information to the destination . . .

. . . . # 19], ¶¶ 11.42-11.45. . See Transcript [Doc. # 62], at 131. . 2007 Agreement, § 35. . . . .

. . . a “Motion to Set Aside, Correct or Vacate Judgment” pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . . (“RCr 11.42”) in the Jefferson Circuit Court. . . . The Kentucky trial court initially denied Petitioner’s RCr 11.42 motion for post-conviction review. . . . This RCr 11.42 motion asserted several new claims for relief. . . . In the interim, the Kentucky Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s amended RCr 11.42 petition. . . .

. . . Id. col.8 11.42-51. . . .

. . . .”); id. col.4 11.42-43 (“[Dislocations and other material defects propagate within the core region.. . . .

. . . feasible means of buying out Finagin, and (ii) that the value of a 100% interest in NEC was approximately $11.42 . . .

. . . “natural spinels and synthetic spinels” are the “most preferred” HUR additives. '317 patent col.ll 11.42 . . . nickel black spinel are characterized as “[particularly outstanding spinel pigments.” '317 patent col.ll 11.42 . . .

. . . Sanborn unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42. . . . of his state-law petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . .

. . . Col.5 11.42-44. . ITG 56.1 ¶ 16. . See id. ¶ 17. . Id. ¶ 18. . See id. ¶ 19. . . . Patent '834 col.5 11.42-46. . Claim Construction, 2010 WL 199912, at *7. . . . .

. . . fiber sheet products having the preselected desired surface electrical resistances. '162 patent, col.8 11.42 . . .

. . . “low flow rate,” claim 1 describes it as being “less than about 1 liter/minute,” '745 patent col.ll 11.42 . . .

. . . order vacating his judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . . The denial of Robertson’s Rule 11.42 motion became final when the Supreme Court of Kentucky denied discretionary . . .

. . . P. 11.42, which the state courts denied. JA 209-10. His conviction became final on March 10, 2004. . . .

. . . See id. fig.l, col.10 11.38-41, col.12 11.42-44. . . .

. . . More drugs and drug paraphernalia, including a plastic bag containing 11.42 grams of crack cocaine, were . . .

. . . Id. at col.9 11.42-47 (emphasis added). . . .

. . . P. 11.42, claiming — among other things—ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorneys . . .

. . . Id. col.l 11.42^6. . . .

. . . an individual program with a corresponding program clock reference (PCR) value.” '074 patent col.ll 11.42 . . .

. . . Patent No. 6,677,358 col.10 11.42-43, 48-51 (“the '358 patent”). . . .

. . . See '651 patent col.3 11.42-48 (“The link may be a landline, or other direct communications path.... . . .

. . . whereby the strap section lends support to the Achilles portion of a human foot. '858 patent col.9 11.42 . . .

. . . Id. col.l 11.42-46. . . .

. . . Id. col.l 11.42-46. . . .

. . . McElrath then moved for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42. . . .

. . . RCr 11.42 in May 2002, seeking to vacate his sentence on three grounds. . . . Cr 11.42 motion, and held that he was barred from seeking relief under Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02. . . .

. . . Hodge pursued state collateral review under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42. . . . RCr 11.42(3); see also Crick v. . . . Trial strategy will not be second guessed in [a Criminal Rule] 11.42 proceeding. . . . In that Criminal Rule 11.42 motion, which was filed in the Acker murder case and which referred only . . . If Hodge was prejudiced at all by the absence of Bartley’s Rule 11.42 motion, it was not the level of . . .

. . . .”); id. at col.7 11.42-45 (“As discussed in detail above, the whole-cell biomass can be used directly . . . Id. col.7 11.42-45 (emphasis added). . . .

. . . to vacate in a collateral proceeding in Clay Circuit Court under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . .

. . . Id. col.2 11.42-47. . . . See id. col.2 11.42-47 (describing “relatively resilient” ends of fingers “such that the glass panel . . .

. . . and provides support for the seat [ ],” '149 patent col.4 11.21; col.6 11.38-40; '630 patent col.3 11.42 . . .

. . . Id. col.16 11.55-57; see id. col.2 11.42-46; id. col.6 11.4-8 (“when the voltage at output is capable . . .

. . . first comer of the third expansion strut pair of the second expansion strut column. '021 patent col.22 11.42 . . .

. . . RCr 11.42 motion in abeyance. . . . RCr 11.42 Appeal Proc., Appellant’s Br. at 48. . . . RCr 11.42(10). . . . Hereinafter, Matthews' RCr 11.42 brief will be cited as "RCr 11.42 Appeal Proc., Appellant’s Br. at-. . . . Hereinafter, Matthews’ RCr 11.42 brief will be cited as "RCr 11.42 Appeal Proc., Appellant’s Br. at-. . . .

. . . See, e.g., '317 patent col.12 11.42-46 (“Although the use of a plurality of built-in radio transceivers . . . Id. col.53 11.42-50. . . .

. . . See '877 Patent col.6 11.42-43. . . .

. . . Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 prohibits post-conviction relief grounded upon issues “which . . . Although a post-conviction Rule 11.42 motion is ordinarily the “appropriate avenue” to claim ineffective . . . Ct.App.1998), when a criminal defendant opts to raise this on direct appeal, Kentucky limits a later 11.42 . . . At his Rule 11.42 evi-dentiary heaving, Peters admitted, “I tried to tell [Hall and Hardy] again and . . . At the Rule 11.42 hearing, however, attorney Hall testified that he spoke with a medical doctor, and, . . . Circuit Court to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . .

. . . On August 21, 2001, Boykin filed a pro se motion under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 alleging . . .

. . . 'Ill patent fig. 1, col. 11 11.42-54. . . .

. . . acting pro se, filed a motion with the trial court, pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . . court — the same court that accepted Railey’s guilty plea and sentenced him — denied Railey’s Rule 11.42 . . .

. . . .”); id., col.2 11.42-43 (identifying an “alphabetic character string, such as a word or syllabic element . . .

. . . P. 11.42 is “limited to issues that were not and could not be raised on direct appeal.” Simmons v. . . . S.W.2d 143, 144 (Ky.1969) (“Insufficiency of evidence is not a ground for relief authorized by RCr 11.42 . . . P. 11.42 — both because he could have raised this claim in his direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme . . . P. 11.42 motions' — means this claim is procedurally defaulted. See O’Sullivan v. . . . P. 11.42 not only means Morningstar’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is procedurally defaulted, but . . .

. . . Id. at col.l 11.42-29. . . . See '127 patent col.2 11.42-45 (“The homocysteine co-substrate assessed in the method of the invention . . . Id. at col.2 11.42-45. SAH-hydro-lase acts as the homocysteine converting enzyme. . . .

. . . Petitioner did not file a motion to vacate pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42. . . . P. 11.42. [Record No. 17.] . . .

. . . relief, via an RCr 11.42 motion. . . . According to the RCr 11.42 motion, Petitioner asked Lundy, before he ever accepted the plea agreement . . . Cloud also raised a second argument, in a supplemental RCr 11.42 filing, based on a January 22, 2004 . . . The Bell Circuit Court summarily rejected Cloud’s RCr 11.42 motion and refused an evidentiary hearing . . . The RCr 11.42 supplement included a copy of the fax. See TR at 78-79. . . .

. . . Id. at col.21 11.42-66. . . .

. . . Id. col.7 11.23-26; col.2 11.42-43. . . .

. . . days to allow Wilson to file a post-conviction motion pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . . In his Rule 11.42 hearing, Wilson alleged, among other things, that he did not knowingly and voluntarily . . . failed to raise his claim on direct appeal and is barred under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . . P. 11.42(10). . . . In Kentucky, a claimant is barred from asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in an 11.42 . . .

. . . fragile gel drilling fluid transitions easily from a liquid to a gel and back again. '832 patent col.2 11.42 . . .

. . . Petitioner then filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Criminal Rule (RCr) 11.42 . . .

. . . Cr. 11.42, on June 22, 1998. . . .

. . . coating on the core,” and (iii) “a second outer layer coating on the inner layer.” '318 patent, col.5 11.42 . . . Id. col.5 11.42-55. . . .

. . . (Id. col.9 11.42-44 (emphasis added); see also id. col.3 ll.42-44 (Brief Summary of the Invention) (“ . . .

. . . Id. 11.42-43. . . .

. . . (Col. 4, 11.42— 44.) . . .

. . . P. 11.42, but the trial court denied relief. . . . P. 11.42, the Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed this claim and denied it. . . . The magistrate judge reviewed the Rule 11.42 hearing record and the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision . . .

. . . later, he filed a motion to set aside his conviction pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . . Stewart filed a second motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42 . . .

. . . disagrees with the district court’s construction of “a water soluble salt” in claim 1. '281 Patent col.5 11.42 . . . separating layer as comprising “a water soluble salt of an enteric coating polymer.” '281 Patent col.5 11.42 . . .

. . . no evidence of Foley having a mental defect, and because much of the testimony presented at the Rule 11.42 . . . When asked during the Rule 11.42 hearing whether Foley had been reluctant to put on mitigation evidence . . . stronger is that even when given the opportunity to investigate thoroughly in preparation for the Rule 11.42 . . . P. 11.42, but the trial court denied relief. . . . P. 11.42, the Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed this claim and denied it. . . . The magistrate judge reviewed the Rule 11.42 hearing record and the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision . . .