6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 sentences2003“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. at 36-37 (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)). 2003“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. at 36-37 (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)). | 1 | 6 |
Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adamsgreen2 sentences1992Applying the principle of Mullane to the context of tax sales, the Supreme Court in Mennonite, supra, held that notice by publication or posting did not provide a mortgagee of real property with constitutionally adequate notice of a proceeding to sell the property for nonpayment of taxes. 462 U.S. at 798, 800 , 103 S.Ct. at 2711, 2712 . 1992Applying the principle of Mullane to the context of tax sales, the Supreme Court in Mennonite, supra, held that notice by publication or posting did not provide a mortgagee of real property with constitutionally adequate notice of a proceeding to sell the property for nonpayment of taxes. 462 U.S. at 798, 800 , 103 S.Ct. at 2711, 2712 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anne E. Miles v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation, and John A. Taylor
green
2 sentences1975See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), where the Court said: An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding *42 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. . . . [Citations omitted.] See also and compare Miles v. District of Columbia, et al., 510 F.2d 188 (D.C.Cir. 1975). 1975See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), where the Court said: An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceed ing 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. . . . [Citations omitted.] See also and compare Miles v. District of Columbia, et al., 510 F.2d 188 (D.C.Cir.1975). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.