Greene v. Lindsey
72 L. Ed. 2d 249 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
Facts
Linnie Lindsey, Barbara Hodgens, and Pamela Ray were tenants in a public housing project in Louisville, Kentucky. In 1975, the Housing Authority of Louisville initiated detainer actions against them to repossess their apartments. Service of process was made by posting a copy of the writ of forcible entry and detainer on the door of each tenant's apartment, as permitted by Ky. Rev. Stat. § 454.030. The tenants claimed they never saw these posted summonses and only learned of the eviction proceedings after default judgments were entered against them and their opportunity for appeal had lapsed, when they were served with writs of possession.
Procedural history
Appellees filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court granted summary judgment for the appellants, finding the posting procedure did not deny due process. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case, concluding that the notice provided was constitutionally deficient. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue
Whether a Kentucky statute allowing service of process by posting a summons on a tenant’s apartment door, as applied to tenants in a public housing project, fails to afford those tenants the notice required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holding
The Court held that the State deprived the appellees of property without due process of law by failing to afford them adequate notice of the eviction proceedings before issuing final orders. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.
Rule
The fundamental requisite of due process is the opportunity to be heard, which requires 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." The sufficiency of notice must be tested with reference to its ability to inform people of proceedings affecting their interests, judged in light of its practical application. While posting notice on property can be acceptable in some cases, it is constitutionally inadequate when, in practice, it results in a significant number of failures to provide actual notice, especially when inexpensive and efficient alternatives like mail service are available.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.