Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2023“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding . . . 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.” Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306, 314 ; 70 S Ct 652 ; 94 L Ed 865 (1950). 2023“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding . . . 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.” Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306, 314 ; 70 S Ct 652 ; 94 L Ed 865 (1950). | 2 | 15 |
Grannis v. Ordeangreen2 sentences1962Without disparaging the usefulness of distinctions between actions in rem and those in personam in many branches of law, or on other issues, or the reasoning which underlies them, we do not rest the power of the State to resort to constructive service in this proceeding upon how its courts or this court may regard this historic antithesis.” The court quoted from Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385, 394 ( 34 S Ct 779 , 58 L ed 1363) as follows (p 314) : “ ‘The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.’ ” The court went on to say (pp 314, 315): “An elementary and fund 1962Without disparaging the usefulness of distinctions between actions in rem and those in personam in many branches of law, or on other issues, or the reasoning which underlies them, we do not rest the power of the State to resort to constructive service in this proceeding upon how its courts or this court may regard this historic antithesis.” The court quoted from Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385, 394 ( 34 S Ct 779 , 58 L ed 1363) as follows (p 314) : “ ‘The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.’ ” The court went on to say (pp 314, 315): “An elementary and fund | 1 | 2 |
Armstrong v. Manzogreen2 sentences2014Failure to give notice violates “the most rudimentary demands of due process of law.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 [ 85 S Ct 1187 ; 14 L Ed 2d 62 ] (1965). [Id. at 84.] The Court reasoned that a party with notice of the suit and the default judgment might have impleaded another party at fault, negotiated a settlement, or paid the debt alleged (as opposed to having his or her property sold at auction). 2014Failure to give notice violates “the most rudimentary demands of due process of law.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 [ 85 S Ct 1187 ; 14 L Ed 2d 62 ] (1965). [Id. at 84.] The Court reasoned that a party with notice of the suit and the default judgment might have impleaded another party at fault, negotiated a settlement, or paid the debt alleged (as opposed to having his or her property sold at auction). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Rood
green
2 sentences2026An 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. [In re Rood, 483 Mich 73, 92 ; 763 NW2d 587 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The notice requirements for child protective proceedings “must be strictly construed.” In re Kozak, 92 Mich App 579, 582 ; 285 NW2d 378 (1979). 2026An 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. [In re Rood, 483 Mich 73, 92 ; 763 NW2d 587 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The notice requirements for child protective proceedings “must be strictly construed.” In re Kozak, 92 Mich App 579, 582 ; 285 NW2d 378 (1979). | 5 | 2022–2026 |
Bundo v. City of Walled Lake
green
2 sentences2023As it pertains to administrative agencies, due process requires “timely written notice detailing the reasons for proposed administrative action.” Bundo v City of Walled Lake, 395 Mich 679, 698 ; 238 NW2d 154 (1976). 2023As it pertains to administrative agencies, due process requires “timely written notice detailing the reasons for proposed administrative action.” Bundo v City of Walled Lake, 395 Mich 679, 698 ; 238 NW2d 154 (1976). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Roller v. Holly
green
2 sentences1962Milliken v. Meyer, 311 US 457 ( 61 S Ct 339 , 85 L ed 278, 132 ALR 1357 ); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385 ( 34 S Ct 779 , 58 L ed 1363); Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 US 604 ( 34 S Ct 443 , 58 L ed 751); Roller v. Holly, 176 US 398 ( 20 S Ct 410 , 44 L ed 520).” In holding that statutory notice by publication was not sufficient, it was further said (pp 315, 319): “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. 1962Milliken v. Meyer, 311 US 457 ( 61 S Ct 339 , 85 L ed 278, 132 ALR 1357 ); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385 ( 34 S Ct 779 , 58 L ed 1363); Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 US 604 ( 34 S Ct 443 , 58 L ed 751); Roller v. Holly, 176 US 398 ( 20 S Ct 410 , 44 L ed 520).” In holding that statutory notice by publication was not sufficient, it was further said (pp 315, 319): “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. | 2 | 1962–1962 |
In the Matter of Kozak
green
2 sentences2026An 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. [In re Rood, 483 Mich 73, 92 ; 763 NW2d 587 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The notice requirements for child protective proceedings “must be strictly construed.” In re Kozak, 92 Mich App 579, 582 ; 285 NW2d 378 (1979). 2026An 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. [In re Rood, 483 Mich 73, 92 ; 763 NW2d 587 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The notice requirements for child protective proceedings “must be strictly construed.” In re Kozak, 92 Mich App 579, 582 ; 285 NW2d 378 (1979). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Dow v. State of Michigan
green
2 sentences2023Indeed, “[t]he ‘opportunity to be heard’ includes the right to notice of that opportunity.” Dow v State, 396 Mich 192, 205 ; 240 NW2d 450 (1976). 2023Indeed, “[t]he ‘opportunity to be heard’ includes the right to notice of that opportunity.” Dow v State, 396 Mich 192, 205 ; 240 NW2d 450 (1976). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Brock
green
2 sentences2009“Due process requires fundamental fairness, which is determined in a particular situation first by ‘considering any relevant precedents and then by assessing the several interests that are at stake.’ ” In re Brock, 442 Mich 101, 111 ; 499 NW2d 752 (1993), quoting Lassiter v Durham Co Dep’t of Social Services, 452 US 18, 25 ; 101 S Ct 2153 ; 68 L Ed 2d 640 (1981). 2009“Due process requires fundamental fairness, which is determined in a particular situation first by ‘considering any relevant precedents and then by assessing the several interests that are at stake.’ ” In re Brock, 442 Mich 101, 111 ; 499 NW2d 752 (1993), quoting Lassiter v Durham Co Dep’t of Social Services, 452 US 18, 25 ; 101 S Ct 2153 ; 68 L Ed 2d 640 (1981). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.
green
2 sentences2009“Due process requires fundamental fairness, which is determined in a particular situation first by ‘considering any relevant precedents and then by assessing the several interests that are at stake.’ ” In re Brock, 442 Mich 101, 111 ; 499 NW2d 752 (1993), quoting Lassiter v Durham Co Dep’t of Social Services, 452 US 18, 25 ; 101 S Ct 2153 ; 68 L Ed 2d 640 (1981). 2009“Due process requires fundamental fairness, which is determined in a particular situation first by ‘considering any relevant precedents and then by assessing the several interests that are at stake.’ ” In re Brock, 442 Mich 101, 111 ; 499 NW2d 752 (1993), quoting Lassiter v Durham Co Dep’t of Social Services, 452 US 18, 25 ; 101 S Ct 2153 ; 68 L Ed 2d 640 (1981). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ridenour v. County of Bay
green
1 sentence1971Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company (1950), 339 US 306 ( 70 S Ct 652 , 94 L Ed 865 ), 314, 315, held: “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.” Our Supreme Court adopted this language in Ridenour v. County of Bay (1962), 366 Mich 225, 240 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Goodrich v. Ferris
green
2 sentences1962(Citing cases.) The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, Grannis v. Ordean, supra, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance, Roller v. Holly, 176 US 398 ( 20 S Ct 410 , 44 L ed 520) and cf. Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 US 71 ( 29 S Ct 580 , 53 L ed 914). *241 “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. 1962(Citing cases.) The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, Grannis v. Ordean, supra, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance, Roller v. Holly, 176 US 398 ( 20 S Ct 410 , 44 L ed 520) and cf. Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 US 71 ( 29 S Ct 580 , 53 L ed 914). *241 “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Priest v. Trustees of Town of Las Vegas
green
2 sentences1962Milliken v. Meyer, 311 US 457 ( 61 S Ct 339 , 85 L ed 278, 132 ALR 1357 ); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385 ( 34 S Ct 779 , 58 L ed 1363); Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 US 604 ( 34 S Ct 443 , 58 L ed 751); Roller v. Holly, 176 US 398 ( 20 S Ct 410 , 44 L ed 520).” In holding that statutory notice by publication was not sufficient, it was further said (pp 315, 319): “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. 1962Milliken v. Meyer, 311 US 457 ( 61 S Ct 339 , 85 L ed 278, 132 ALR 1357 ); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385 ( 34 S Ct 779 , 58 L ed 1363); Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 US 604 ( 34 S Ct 443 , 58 L ed 751); Roller v. Holly, 176 US 398 ( 20 S Ct 410 , 44 L ed 520).” In holding that statutory notice by publication was not sufficient, it was further said (pp 315, 319): “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Milliken v. Meyer
green
2 sentences1962Milliken v. Meyer, 311 US 457 ( 61 S Ct 339 , 85 L ed 278, 132 ALR 1357 ); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385 ( 34 S Ct 779 , 58 L ed 1363); Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 US 604 ( 34 S Ct 443 , 58 L ed 751); Roller v. Holly, 176 US 398 ( 20 S Ct 410 , 44 L ed 520).” In holding that statutory notice by publication was not sufficient, it was further said (pp 315, 319): “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. 1962Milliken v. Meyer, 311 US 457 ( 61 S Ct 339 , 85 L ed 278, 132 ALR 1357 ); Grannis v. Ordean, 234 US 385 ( 34 S Ct 779 , 58 L ed 1363); Priest v. Las Vegas, 232 US 604 ( 34 S Ct 443 , 58 L ed 751); Roller v. Holly, 176 US 398 ( 20 S Ct 410 , 44 L ed 520).” In holding that statutory notice by publication was not sufficient, it was further said (pp 315, 319): “But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.
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.