Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 242
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 242.310 (2026)

Renting of property, or hiring vehicle for transportation is nuisance --

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Forfeiture. (1) Any person knowingly or intentionally renting or permitting the use of, or using, any premises, or part thereof, or any vehicle for the purpose of unlawfully selling or transporting or possessing intoxicating liquors in dry territory, shall be guilty of a nuisance and of a violation of this chapter. (2) Any property so used shall be forfeited to the state. The forfeiture shall extend to the whole of the premises or vehicle owned by the defendant, or to his interest in said property, including all land and buildings in one boundary. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2554c-24.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1943–1974 · leading case: Bratcher v. Ashley, 243 S.W.2d 1011 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bratcher v. Ashley, 243 S.W.2d 1011 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). · cites it 8× “310 was not intended by itself alone to place the Commonwealth in a better position than, or give it a right superior to, an innocent creditor who unquestionably held an interest in the property prior to the arrest of the wrongdoer.”
Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Jacobs, 269 S.W.2d 189 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 3× “order a place, *192 padlocked because a single sale had been made on credit, or to a minor, or after the prescribed closing hour.”
Commonwealth v. Covington, 231 S.W.2d 67 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). · cites it 4× “350 (2) provides, “It shall not be necesr sary for the court to find the property involved is being unlawfully used as described in KRS 242.310 at the time of the hearing, but on finding that the material allegations of the petition are true, the court shall order the abatement…”
Moore v. Commonwealth, 168 S.W.2d 342 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “” KRS 242.310 et seq., sec. 2554c-24, Ky. Stats.”
Barnes v. Commonwealth ex rel. Kash, 236 S.W.2d 454 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). · cites it 2× “Jessie Barnes is appealing from a judgment forfeiting her land in Irvine, Kentucky, under the provisions of KRS 242.310 and 242.320. The court found that a nuisance existed on the property because of the possession and sale of liquor on the premises in local option territory.”
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 255 S.W.2d 984 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). · cites it 2× “The petition alleged that the premises were being used as a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors in dry territory, in violation of KRS 242.310, and that the premises also constituted a common-law nuisance in .”
Collett v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.2d 877 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). · cites it 3× “The Law of the Case KRS 242.310 provides that any person knowingly or intentionally renting or permitting the use of, or using, any premises, or part thereof, for the purpose of unlawfully selling or-possessing intoxicating liquors in dry territory, shall be guilty of a nuisance…”
Osborne v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.2d 894 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). · cites it 2× “The Applicable Law KRS 242.310 provides that any person knowingly or intentionally renting or permitting the use of, or using, any premises, or part thereof, for the purpose of unlawfully selling or possessing intoxicating liquors in dry territory, shall be guilty of a nuisance…”
Adkins v. Commonwealth, 230 S.W.2d 453 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “*111 Appellant, Ola Adkins, was convicted of the nuisance of wilfully and knowingly allowing and permitting' intoxicating liquors to be kept and sold in a dwelling house owned and occupied by her in local option territory, an offense denounced by KRS 242.310. Her punishment was…”
Chaney v. Commonwealth, 234 S.W.2d 960 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “The basis of the forfeiture is that the owner thereof has permitted the property to be used for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors in dry territory and is provided for in KRS 242.310 and 242.320. Appellant seeks reversal on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient…”
Commonwealth ex rel. Williams v. Wilson, 381 S.W.2d 620 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 7× “KRS 242.310 through 330 provide for the forfeiture of property used in violation of' the local option laws.”
Riddell v. Commonwealth ex rel. Kash, 235 S.W.2d 769 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). · cites it 2× “The forfeiture action was brought pursuant to KRS 242.310 and 242.320. Reversal of the judgment is sought on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to show appellant, the owner of the property, knew it was being used in violation of the statutes.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 242.310(1) — 1 case
Grace v. Commonwealth ex rel. Grigsby, 507 S.W.2d 170 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.