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
706 chars“The remedy of forcible entry and de-tainer was evolved from an English criminal proceeding and is not strictly a common law action. It is regarded as a statutory action at law to recover possession of real property .... ” McHugh v. Knippert, 243 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Ky.1951). As a special statutory proceeding, KRS 383.200-285 governs the eviction process with its own unique procedural requirements which “shall prevail over any inconsistent procedures set forth in the Rules [of Civil Procedure].” CR 1; See Baker v. Ryan, 967 S.W.2d 591, 592 (Ky.App.l997)(Holding that “the [forcible entry and detainer] statutes set up an exclusive procedure, complete unto itself, which implicitly rules out discovery.”)