The purpose of this paper is primarily to analyze Kentucky’s venue statutes, and secondarily to suggest the path to reform. The paper is divided into four parts. Part I is a brief history of the confusion in Kentucky between jurisdiction and venue. Some exposure to this history is essential to an understanding of the older cases, which in some areas are the only cases in point. Part II is an analysis of the four major venue statutes in KRS Chapter 454: KRS § 452.400—actions involving land; KRS § 452.450-actions against corporations; KRS § 452.460—actions for personal injury or property damage; and KRS § 452.480—transitory actions. Part III is an analysis of the major venue problems in Kentucky: (a) actions involving a non-resident or property outside the state; (b) actions involving more than one claim or theory of relief; (c) the problem of multiple defendants; (d) cross-claims and third-party complaints; (e) dismissals and the statute of limitations; and (f) changes of venue. Part IV traces the Ohio experience and suggests that the Kentucky legislature and Court of Appeals follow the example set by Ohio.
William H. Fortune, Venue of Civil Actions in Kentucky, 60 Ky. L.J. 497 (1972).