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
648 charsWe understand the difficulty our district judges face in dealing with this antiquated statutory process. We understand the practical impediments it can impose upon landlords with a legitimate need to take possession of property that may deteriorate or be damaged during the one-month notice period. The courts, however, are not at liberty to circumvent or evade the statutory language by turning a blind eye to the statutory requirements for the sake of expedience. Consequently, we cannot sanction procedural improvisations such as the one employed here to mitigate the effect of the one-month notice provision. As noted in Pack v. Feuchtenberger.