Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Schroeder v. City of New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1962 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDue ProcessNoticeCondemnationFourteenth Amendmentdue processnoticepublication

Facts

The City of New York began condemnation proceedings in 1952 to acquire the right to divert part of the Neversink River, upstream from the appellant's seasonal property in Orange County. The city published notice in the City Record, in New York City newspapers, and in two Orange County newspapers, and posted 22 notices on trees and poles along a seven- or eight-mile stretch of the river, but none on the appellant's property. The appellant's name and address were readily ascertainable from deed records and tax rolls, yet the notices did not identify her or other owners, did not explain what action owners could take to recover damages, and did not mention the time limit for filing claims. The appellant alleged she had no notice of the proceedings or of her right to file a claim until after the statutory three-year period had expired.

Issue

Whether the City of New York deprived the appellant of due process of law by failing to provide constitutionally adequate notice of condemnation proceedings affecting her property, where the city relied on newspaper publication and posted notices even though her name and address were readily ascertainable.

Rule

Notice 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. Notice by publication is not sufficient for a person whose name and address are known or very easily ascertainable and whose legally protected interests are directly affected; in such circumstances, the government must at least make a good-faith effort to give personal notice, and a mailed letter will suffice.

🔒

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.

The City of Akron begins condemnation proceedings to acquire a drainage easement that will permanently limit use of land owned by Elena Morris. Akron publishes notices in two county newspapers and posts flyers on utility poles near the affected creek, but it does not mail anything to Elena, even though her name and mailing address appear on county tax rolls.

If Elena later argues that the notice violated due process, which is the strongest answer?

Explanation. Due process requires notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the proceeding and allow them to object. When a person’s name and address are known or very easily ascertainable and the proceeding directly affects that person’s property interests, publication is not enough; the government must make at least a good-faith effort to provide personal notice, and mailing a letter would suffice. (Derived from Schroeder v. City of New York (1962).)