Also known as: due notices · adequate notice · proper notice
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Notice that is timely and sufficient to inform a party of a proceeding or action affecting its rights and to afford an opportunity to respond. The notice must convey the essential facts and legal consequences so the recipient can prepare a defense or take corrective steps before any deprivation occurs.
State officials mailed David Dawson a letter stating only that his need-based payments would end next month because of new area-wide monitoring data. The letter gave no date for a hearing and supplied no individualized reasons. Without an opportunity to present his own evidence before payments stopped, Dawson lost the ability to maintain his household.
After repeated roof leaks damaged inventory at Delta Dynamics, the tenant sent the landlord a detailed letter describing the needed repairs and the estimated cost. When the landlord failed to act, Delta Dynamics hired contractors and subtracted the reasonable expense from the next rent payment.
Dominic Drake received a summons for civil contempt that listed the hearing date and warned that jail was possible if he could not prove inability to pay. The court also provided a form explaining how to document income and expenses. Drake appeared, presented his financial records, and avoided incarceration.
Derek Douglas notified his landlord in writing that the heating system had failed. After the landlord ignored the notice, Douglas deposited the full monthly rent into an escrow account and continued to do so until the repairs were completed.
Danielle Dixon purchased a home subject to a racially restrictive covenant recorded decades earlier. When neighbors sought judicial enforcement, the court refused to apply the covenant because state judicial action would violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
In February 1911, thirty out of thirty-nine owners of property fronting both sides of Labadie Avenue between Taylor Avenue and Cora Avenue in St. Louis signed a recorded agreement. The agreement restricted the use and occupancy of the properties for fifty years to persons of the Caucasian race. It excluded occupancy by people of the Negro or Mongolian race. The district included fifty-seven parcels of land. The signers held title to forty-seven parcels. At the time, five parcels were owned by Negroes, with one occupied by Negro families since 1882. On August 11, 1945, the Shelley petitioners, who are Negroes, purchased one parcel from Fitzgerald by warranty deed for valuable consideration without knowledge of the restriction. On October 9, 1945, respondents sued in the Circuit Court of St. Louis to restrain the Shelleys and divest title. The trial court denied relief, but the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and directed enforcement. In June 1934, Ferguson and his wife executed a contract restricting their Detroit property to Caucasian occupancy. The restriction was effective only if at least eighty percent of the lots in the block were subjected to similar restrictions. The restrictions were to remain in effect until January 1, 1960. Similar agreements covered eighty percent of the lots. By deed dated November 30, 1944, the McGhee petitioners, who were Negroes, acquired and occupied the Detroit property. On January 30, 1945, respondents sued in Wayne County Circuit Court. The court ordered them to move within ninety days and enjoined future occupancy. The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed. Petitioners claimed that judicial enforcement violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
View caseThe city condemned a parcel owned by Davenport Pharmaceuticals and mailed notice of the valuation hearing. Because the notice arrived only two days before the hearing, the company could not assemble appraisal evidence and received an award below fair market value.
The City of Chicago, acting under an 1872 Illinois statute that became part of its charter in 1875, passed an ordinance on October 9, 1880, to open and widen Rockwell Street from West 18th Street to West 19th Street by condemning parcels of land owned by individuals and parts of the right of way of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company within the city limits. On November 12, 1890, the city filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County seeking condemnation of the property and asking that just compensation be ascertained by a jury, with the railroad company admitted as a defendant along with other interested parties. The jury awarded one dollar as just compensation to the railroad company for the parts of its right of way to be used for the street, while awarding compensation to individual owners for their parcels. The railroad moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and final judgment was entered in execution of the award. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Illinois in 149 Illinois 457. After affirmance the railroad company sued out a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court. The railroad had raised claims under the Fourteenth Amendment in its motion for new trial and in its assignment of errors filed in the state supreme court. The Illinois statute provided no provision for an answer by defendants in condemnation proceedings, but the railroad asserted its federal claims in the written motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
View caseNotice must be timely and provide enough information for the recipient to understand the proposed action and prepare a response. It must also precede any evidentiary hearing at which the recipient can present evidence and confront witnesses.
Supporting sources
Yes. Once the written notice reaches the intended recipient, the obligation to respond is triggered regardless of whether the recipient actually reads the document.
Supporting sources
After proper written notice of the landlord's default, the tenant may deposit rent into escrow until the default is cured or the lease ends. Only the abated amount need be escrowed once an abatement has occurred.
Supporting sources
No. When property is mobile and easily concealed or destroyed, the state may seize first and provide notice and a hearing afterward, provided post-seizure safeguards exist.
Supporting sources
…concur in the judgment and in most of the Court’s opinion. The Delaware sequestration statute, as applied here, does not provide adequate notice or opportunity to be heard consistent with due process. Dissenting opinions Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part — Justice Brennan I agree with much of the Court’s reasoning…