Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Robinson v. Hanrahan

Supreme Court of the United States · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDue ProcessNoticedue processnoticeforfeiturein remmail service

Facts

After appellant was arrested on June 16, 1970, Illinois immediately began forfeiture proceedings against his automobile under the state vehicle forfeiture statute. Appellant remained in the Cook County jail from June 16 to October 7, 1970, during the entire forfeiture proceeding. The State mailed notice of the forfeiture, not to the jail, but to appellant's home address listed with the Secretary of State, and it is undisputed that he did not receive the notice until after his release. Following an ex parte hearing, the circuit court ordered forfeiture and sale of the vehicle.

Issue

Whether the State satisfied the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by mailing notice of forfeiture proceedings to appellant's home address when the State knew he was in jail and therefore not at that address and unable to receive the notice there.

Rule

Notice in any proceeding to be accorded finality must be 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 constitutional adequacy of notice does not turn on labeling the proceeding in rem or quasi in rem.

🔒

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.

Phoenix police seized Devin Cole’s pickup and the state promptly filed a forfeiture action. Court staff mailed notice only to Devin’s apartment address listed on his vehicle registration, even though the prosecutor’s file showed Devin had been held continuously in the Maricopa County jail since the seizure.

Did the state’s notice method satisfy due process?

Explanation. Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and allow objections. When the state knows the owner is not at the mailed address and knows he is confined elsewhere, mailing only to the old address is not reasonably calculated to reach him. The majority also rejected the idea that the in rem character of forfeiture lowers the constitutional notice standard. (Derived from Robinson v. Hanrahan (n.d.).)