elementary and fundamental requirement in Louisiana

24 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2024 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.green scotus · 1950 · cited in 13 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1968–2024 2 sentences 2024See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice … to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”). 2024See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice … to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”).	4	13
Matherne v. Guilliotgreen lactapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See also Matherne v. Guilliot, 544 So.2d 723 (La.	1	1
C & C Energy, L.L.C. v. Cody Investments, L.L.C.green la · 2010 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016See C & C Energy, L.L.C. v. Cody Investments, L.L.C., 2009-2160 (La.7/6/10), 41 So.3d 1134, 1138 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Schroeder v. City of New York green scotus · 1962 2 sentences 1985The United States Supreme Court put it in these terms: "`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. * * '" Schroeder v. New York, 371 U.S. 208 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962). 1985The United States Supreme Court put it in these terms: "`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. * *'" Schroeder v. New York, 371 U.S. 208 , 83 S.Ct. 279 , 9 L.Ed.2d 255 (1962).	3	1972–1985
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft green scotus · 1978 2 sentences 2009Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 11 , 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1562 , 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)). 2009Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 11 , 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1562 , 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)).	2	1998–2009
Fields v. State green la · 1998 2 sentences 2008Fields, 714 So.2d 1244 . 2000“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due \| ^process is notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to appraise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Fields v. State, Through the Dep’t of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611, p. 20 (La.7/8/98); 714 So.2d 1244, 1258 .	2	2000–2008
Roller v. Holly green scotus · 1900 2 sentences 1979Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 , 132 A.L.R. 1357 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363 ; Priest v. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 , 34 S.Ct. 443 , 58 L.Ed. 751 ; 542 Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S.Ct. 410 , 44 L.Ed. 520 . 1979Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 , 132 A.L.R. 1357 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363 ; Priest v. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 , 34 S.Ct. 443 , 58 L.Ed. 751 ; 542 Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S.Ct. 410 , 44 L.Ed. 520 .	2	1968–1979
Priest v. Trustees of Town of Las Vegas green scotus · 1914 2 sentences 1979Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 , 132 A.L.R. 1357 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363 ; Priest v. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 , 34 S.Ct. 443 , 58 L.Ed. 751 ; 542 Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S.Ct. 410 , 44 L.Ed. 520 . 1979Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 , 132 A.L.R. 1357 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363 ; Priest v. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 , 34 S.Ct. 443 , 58 L.Ed. 751 ; 542 Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S.Ct. 410 , 44 L.Ed. 520 .	2	1968–1979
Grannis v. Ordean green scotus · 1914 2 sentences 1979Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 , 132 A.L.R. 1357 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363 ; Priest v. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 , 34 S.Ct. 443 , 58 L.Ed. 751 ; 542 Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S.Ct. 410 , 44 L.Ed. 520 . 1979Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 , 132 A.L.R. 1357 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363 ; Priest v. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 , 34 S.Ct. 443 , 58 L.Ed. 751 ; 542 Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S.Ct. 410 , 44 L.Ed. 520 .	2	1968–1979
Milliken v. Meyer green scotus · 1941 2 sentences 1979Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 , 132 A.L.R. 1357 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363 ; Priest v. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 , 34 S.Ct. 443 , 58 L.Ed. 751 ; 542 Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S.Ct. 410 , 44 L.Ed. 520 . 1979Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 , 61 S.Ct. 339 , 85 L.Ed. 278 , 132 A.L.R. 1357 ; Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 , 34 S.Ct. 779 , 58 L.Ed. 1363 ; Priest v. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas, 232 U.S. 604 , 34 S.Ct. 443 , 58 L.Ed. 751 ; 542 Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 , 20 S.Ct. 410 , 44 L.Ed. 520 .	2	1968–1979
Central Properties v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC C/W Husker partners/us Bank D/B/A Husker Partners v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC C/W Husker partners/us Bank D/B/A Husker Partners v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC green la · 2017 1 sentence 2022The Stowe-Serge court acknowledged that “[t]he United States Supreme Court recognized that an elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding[,] which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Stow-Serge, 2020- 0015, p. 4, 302 So.3d at 75 (citing Central Properties, 2016-1855, 2016-1946, p. 8, 225 So.3d at 447 ).	1	2022–2022
Smith v. OUR LADY OF LAKE HOSP. green la · 1994 1 sentence 2020Id.	1	2020–2020
Tietjen v. City of Shreveport green la · 2010 1 sentence 2016The Tietjen, supra, court also stated that factual determinations are subject to review for manifest error.	1	2016–2016
Armstrong v. Manzo green scotus · 1965 1 sentence 2013Accordingly, the Court further recognized that “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.” Id.	1	2013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 25 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1630 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 72 (1980–2025) TX 50 (1965–2023) CA 42 (1953–2026) IN 36 (1894–2023) NY 32 (1966–2026) LA 24 (1968–2024) IL 23 (1899–2025) MI 22 (1951–2026) PA 19 (1973–2023) MO 19 (1972–2024) MD 16 (1969–2024) OK 15 (1975–2011) CT 15 (1984–2023) NC 13 (1951–2024) NH 12 (1978–2023) NJ 12 (1971–2020) FL 12 (1981–2024) VA 11 (1978–2016) AZ 10 (1967–2021) GA 10 (1974–2003) AL 10 (1904–2025) MA 10 (1988–2026) WA 9 (1978–2018) KS 8 (1978–2005) CO 8 (1994–2011) OR 8 (1953–2020) SD 7 (1991–2015) NM 7 (1995–2020) WI 6 (1981–2020) VT 6 (1997–2020) HI 6 (1923–2022) UT 6 (1983–2020) DC 6 (1975–2003) MS 5 (1984–2016) TN 5 (1976–2015) MN 5 (1956–2018) AR 4 (2002–2018) RI 4 (1963–2011) IA 4 (1974–2016) WV 4 (1990–2019) MT 3 (1926–2007) ND 3 (1986–2014) KY 3 (1988–2021) NV 3 (1977–1998) AK 3 (1984–1994) ME 3 (1998–2007) ID 2 (1958–1986) NE 2 (1984–1988) SC 2 (2001–2005) DE 2 (2018–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check