The Kentucky Supreme Court has denied an emergency motion for interlocutory relief filed by the London City Council and multiple city officials in their dispute with Randall Weddle, who serves in both individual and official capacities related to the city's mayoral office.
In an unpublished opinion issued in case number 2025-SC-0462-I, the state's highest court rejected the movants' request for immediate judicial intervention under Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure 21(B) and 20(F). The movants included the London City Council, council members Judd Weaver, Donna Gail Wilson House, Kelly Smith Greene, Anthony Ortega, Justin Young, and James Baker, as well as Tracie Handley, who serves as appointed mayor.
The case originated in Laurel Circuit Court and was appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. The dispute centers on competing claims to the mayoral office between Weddle and Handley, who was appointed as interim mayor by the city council.
The Supreme Court's analysis focused on procedural requirements for interlocutory relief. The court examined whether the Court of Appeals correctly handled the lower court proceedings and found that "the Circuit Court has not issued any injunction and the refusal to grant an injunction was not adverse to the Movants."
Under Kentucky appellate rules, RAP 20 provides grounds for interlocutory appeals from certain types of injunctive relief. However, the Supreme Court determined that because no injunction was actually issued by the trial court, the procedural requirements for such an appeal were not met. This technical ruling effectively blocked the city council's attempt to seek immediate intervention from the appellate courts.
The court went further in its analysis, addressing the underlying merits of the dispute. The justices concluded that "injunctive relief to remove Mayor Weddle from office and reinstate Interim-Mayor Handley is not warranted under law." This substantive ruling suggests the city council lacks the legal authority to remove Weddle through judicial proceedings or that the circumstances do not justify such extraordinary relief.
The opinion carries significant limitations on its precedential value. Designated as "not to be published" under RAP 40(D), the decision cannot be cited as binding precedent in other Kentucky cases. However, the rules allow unpublished decisions rendered after Jan. 1, 2003, to be cited for consideration when no published opinion adequately addresses the legal issue at hand.
This designation reflects the court's view that the dispute involves fact-specific circumstances rather than broad legal principles that would guide future cases. Municipal governance disputes often present unique local circumstances that limit their broader applicability.
The procedural history suggests this case has moved through Kentucky's court system relatively quickly, with the original filing in Laurel Circuit Court (case number 25-CI-00864) progressing through the Court of Appeals (2025-CA-1269) before reaching the Supreme Court in 2025.
The dispute appears to involve questions of municipal authority and the proper procedures for mayoral succession or appointment. While the specific facts underlying the conflict are not detailed in the available court documents, the involvement of multiple city council members suggests the disagreement has divided London's local government.
Mayoral disputes in Kentucky municipalities can arise from various circumstances, including questions about election procedures, appointment authority, or succession protocols. The involvement of both individual and official capacity claims indicates the dispute may have personal as well as governmental dimensions.
The Supreme Court's ruling effectively ends the city council's attempt to resolve the mayoral question through emergency judicial intervention. The denial of interlocutory relief means the parties must either proceed through normal trial court processes or seek resolution through other legal or political means.
For London residents, the decision means continued uncertainty about the city's mayoral situation until the underlying dispute is resolved through regular court proceedings or other means. The court's determination that injunctive relief is not warranted suggests Weddle will likely continue in his current role while any remaining legal issues are addressed.
The case reflects broader challenges facing municipal governments when leadership disputes arise. Kentucky's appellate courts have consistently required clear legal authority and proper procedural compliance before intervening in local governmental matters, particularly when seeking extraordinary relief like injunctions affecting elected or appointed officials.
Moving forward, the parties may need to address their dispute through the regular civil litigation process in Laurel Circuit Court, where the original case remains pending. The Supreme Court's guidance that injunctive relief is not warranted provides important direction for how the lower court should approach any future requests for similar relief in this ongoing municipal governance dispute.