§ 1437f

Citation: § 1437f
Parent Document: Nozzi v. Housing Authority, 806 F.3d 1178 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-11-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3158630/nozzi-v-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,173 chars

17
     As the district court noted, the Supreme Court applies a streamlined
test when the only question to be decided is whether the government has
provided sufficient notice and there is no request for further procedural
safeguards. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306
(1950). Under Mullane, courts must determine whether the notice given
was “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 314. If we were to review
this case ab initio, we might simply apply Mullane to the facts of this case,
as might well be appropriate. See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S.
161, 167–68 (2002). Because the prior panel instructed the district court
to apply Mathews, we also conduct our due process analysis in terms of
the Mathews test. We note, however, that the choice of test is not
dispositive here. For reasons that we explain below, the notice afforded
to the plaintiffs in this case was insufficient under either test.
                      NOZZI V. HACLA                          25 1. The Private Interest at Stake

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text