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
931 chars. This point is demonstrated by the inconsistent adaptations that different district court judges have developed relating to the very problem we address in this action. Some district courts have formally adopted local rules that seem to sanction the approach used in this action. For example, Hopkins District Court Rule 5, provides in pertinent part: “Proof of a written notice to terminate the tenancy is required and must be made 30 days before the hearing," (emphasis added), although apparently not requiring the notice 30 days before the filing of the action. Other district courts reject this approach. See Da-viess District Court Rule 1002, which states: "[T]he tenant is to be provided thirty (30) days’ notice before the Forcible Detainer action can be filed.... [T]he filing of a forcible de-tainer complaint shall not be considered notice of eviction,” (Emphasis added). .Chiles v. Stephens, 10 Ky. 340, 345-346 (1821):