Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Greene v. Lindsey

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDue ProcessNoticeService of ProcessEvictionFourteenth AmendmentDue Process Clausenotice

Facts

Kentucky law allowed service in forcible entry and detainer actions by posting a copy of the notice on the premises if the officer could not find the defendant or a family member over 16 on the premises. In 1975, the Housing Authority of Louisville initiated detainer actions against three tenants in a Louisville public housing project, and the summonses were posted on their apartment doors. The tenants claimed they never saw the notices and learned of the proceedings only after writs of possession were executed following default judgments and after their time to appeal had expired. The record showed that in that housing project posted notices were not infrequently removed by children or other tenants before reaching the intended recipient.

Issue

Whether Kentucky's statutory practice of serving notice in forcible entry and detainer actions solely by posting the summons on the apartment door, as applied to tenants in a public housing project, provided the notice required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

A state notice procedure is constitutionally adequate only if it is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present objections. The adequacy of notice depends on its practical reliability in the particular setting and on the availability of feasible and customary alternatives that would materially enhance reliability.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, Riverview Homes filed summary possession actions against tenants of a large apartment complex. Under a city rule, a marshal may tape the summons to the apartment door after one unsuccessful visit; building staff and marshals have repeatedly reported that notices in this complex are often removed by other residents before the tenant returns home, and each tenant's mailing address is the apartment itself.

If a tenant challenges the rule as applied to this complex, which is the strongest argument that the notice procedure violates due process?

Explanation. Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and permit objections. The majority held that posting is not per se invalid, but posting alone becomes constitutionally deficient when the record shows it is not a reliable means of notice in the actual setting and feasible alternatives such as mail are available to improve reliability.