Notice of the Change or Issue
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” 1 This may include an obligation, upon learning that an attempt at notice has failed, to take “reasonable followup measures” that may be available.2 In addition, notice must be sufficient to enable the recipient to determine what is being proposed and what he must do to prevent the deprivation of his interest.3 Ordinarily, service of the notice must be reasonably structured to assure that the person to whom it is directed receives it.4 Such notice, however, need not describe the legal procedures necessary to protect one’s interest if such procedures are otherwise set out in published, generally available public sources.5
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). See also Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996) (res judicata may not apply where taxpayer who challenged a county’s occupation tax was not informed of prior case and where taxpayer interests were not adequately protected).
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 235 (2006) (state's certified letter, intended to notify a property owner that his property would be sold unless he satisfied a tax delinquency, was returned by the post office marked “unclaimed” ; the state should have taken additional reasonable steps to notify the property owner, as it would have been practicable for it to have done so).
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267–68 (1970).
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965); Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (1972); Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444 (1982).
- City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (1999).
The following state regulations pages link to this page.