Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Citation
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Parent Document
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 2016-08-25
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
- Shinkle v. Turner, 496 S.W.3d 418 (2016)
Full Text
1,042 charsWe begin our review with the observation that during pendency of the appellate process, Shinkle vacated the premises. Arguably, the issue could be regarded as moot although Turner has not raised that issue. In fact, apparently content after regaining possession of his property, Turner has not filed responses to any of Shinkle’s appellate pleadings. As we noted in Morgan v. Getter, “The general rule is ... that ‘where, pending an appeal, an event occurs which makes a determination of the question unnecessary or which would render the judgment that might be pronounced ineffectual, the appeal should be dismissed.’” 441 S.W.3d 94, 99 (Ky. 2014) (citations omitted). As methodically explained in Morgan, we recognize and may apply a “public interest” exception to that general rule when the following three elements are present: (1) a question of law that is of a public nature; (2) a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) a likelihood of future recurrence of the question. Id. at 102.