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
1,277 charsAll three of those are elements present in this matter. First, the proper and efficient application of the law pertaining to the special statutory proceeding for forcible entry and detainer is a matter of public interest. The general statutory scheme established for such proceedings, KRS 383.200-280, although re-codified from time to time, is at least a hundred years old and arguably is now ill-suited to the reality of modem landlord-tenant relations. Second, the statutory process for the adjudication of forcible entry and detainer cases is difficult to apply in the modem court system. The dearth of reported appellate opinions addressing those difficulties leaves our district courts to improvise on their own with little guidance from the appellate courts, leading to inconsistent application of the same statutory standards.2 Third, the factual situation present*421ed by this case is a recurrent event in modern life that very often arises -under circumstances in which appellate review is highly unlikely. Consequently, we are satisfied that all three elements of the .“public interest” exception to the mootness. doctrine are present here, and our duty lies in resolving the issue for the benefit of those whose lives and property are affected by it. III. ANALYSIS