Section 59
- Citation
- Section 59
- Parent Document
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Jurisdiction
- Kentucky (state)
- Effective Date
- 1983-10-12
Other Sections in This Document (68)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Miles v. Shauntee, 664 S.W.2d 512 (1983)
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
- Section 59
Full Text
1,457 charscation. Although it may be conceded that Jefferson and Fayette Counties have the first and fourth, respectively, largest number of tenants occupying substandard housing of the one hundred and twenty (120) counties in the Commonwealth, the mere acuteness of the problem with respect to these two counties does not serve as a rational basis for eliminating or refusing to deal with similar situations, involving the other 118 counties in the Commonwealth. The problems of public health, economic waste and substandard dwelling dealt with by the act are no less important in the other 118 counties in the Commonwealth. As stated by the Court of Appeals, “There is no indication that the problem of substandard rental housing and crowded rental quarters is any more acute in proportion to the population in Jefferson County and Fayette County than it is in other areas of the state.” “Even when absolute numbers (rather than percentages) are used, it is apparent that Jefferson and Fayette counties are not the two counties with the largest number of substandard renter-occupied units. Pike and Hardin Counties occupy the second and third positions on the chart, with Fayette County coming in fourth.” It is the opinion of this Court that the Jefferson Circuit Court and Court of Appeals decisions holding that the URLTA is special legislation within the prohibition of the Kentucky Constitution and therefore invalid is correct, and the decisions are affirmed.