In 2009 the Kentucky Supreme Court substantially revised the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct.
Articles in this index written before 2009 citing Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct must be checked for any changes to the rule cited.

Computation of Time and Leap Year 1996


What follows is an update of a piece we included in our Winter 1992 Newsletter:

What does the extra day in 1996 mean to Kentucky lawyers when computing time deadlines? At least one state (Oregon) stung a lawyer by using 365 days as the measure of a one year limitation period even though the year in issue was a leap year with 366 days.

KRS 446.010, Construction of Statutes, Definitions, provides that “Year” means calendar year. The two Kentucky cases we located which considered the Leap Year question both reasoned that since “Year” means calendar year it is immaterial that Leap Year includes an extra day. Proceedings were, therefore, not barred because a party got the benefit of an extra day to get to court (Rice v. Blair, 158 Ky. 680, 166 S.W. 180(1914); Geneva Cooperage Co. v. Brown, 124 Ky. 16, 98 S.W. 279 (1906).

What about the situation when the 28th and 29th of February occur during a period to be computed of less than one year? We are unaware of consideration of this question by Kentucky legal authority. One secondary authority provides that when these two days occur in any period of days less than one year they must be computed as two days(Sec. 11. Day, 74 Am Jur 2d. Time).

The key is to be safe, not sorry. Count a year time limitations as 365 days and the 28th and 29th of February 1996 as two days. That way you can’t go wrong.


323 West Main Street, Suite 600 | Louisville, Kentucky 40202 | Phone: 502-568-6100 | Fax: 502-568-6103

Disclaimer: The contents of this Web site are intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. It is not the intent of this Web site to establish an attorney’s standard of due care for a particular situation. Rather, it is our intent to advise our policyholders to act in a manner which may be well above the standard of due care in order to avoid claims having merit, as well as those without merit. In the event any statement on the Web site differs from a statement in an issued policy the policy will control.