Notice, Opportunity to be Heard, Venue

Question 1

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank

Answer 1

finding that notice by publication did not constitute sufficient notice to beneficiaries in a judicial settlement of accounts in a common trust if those beneficiaries could be located by reasonable due diligence (but notice by mail is sufficient) when defendant published notice in the local New York newspaper compliant with New York banking law.

Question 2

Dusenbery v. United States

Answer 2

finding that personal notice was not required regarding a pending forfeiture of property even though the recipient’s name and address are known to the government (notice by certified mail is sufficient) when defendant contends that they did not receive actual notice.

Question 3

Jones v. Flowers

Answer 3

finding that due process requires that the state take “reasonable additional steps” to attempt to notify a property owner of a tax sale of their property “if it is practicable to do so” if the original notice sent by certified mail is returned unclaimed by the owner-taxpayer.

Question 4

Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.

Answer 4

finding that the prejudgment seizure of wages did not comport with the due process clause of the constitution when service on a garnishee froze a debtor’s wages during the period before trial (i.e., prejudgment seizure of wages).

Question 5

Fuentes v. Shevin

Answer 5

finding that state statutes authorizing the replevin of consumer goods without a pre-seizure hearing were unconstitutional because the seizing of property was not due to an “extraordinary situation” when a seller obtained a writ of replevin against defendant for not paying in full for the goods (stove) she bought in installments.