Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/352/112/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 06:26:40
Document Index: 182582605

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 2', '§ 26']

The appellant Lee Walker owned certain land in the City of Hutchinson, Kansas. In 1954, the City filed an action in the District Court of Reno County, Kansas, to condemn part of his property in order to open, widen, and chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
extend one of the City's streets. The proceeding was instituted under the authority of Article 2, Chapter 26 of the General Statutes of Kansas, 1949. Pursuant to § 26-201 of that statute, [Footnote 1] the court appointed three commissioners to determine compensation for the property taken and for any other damage suffered. These commissioners were required by § 26-202 to give landowners at least ten days' notice of the time and place of their proceedings. Such notice could be given either "in writing . . . or by one publication in the official city paper. . . ." [Footnote 2] The appellant here was not given notice chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
in writing, but publication was made in the official city paper of Hutchinson. The commissioners fixed his damages at $725, and, pursuant to statute, this amount was deposited with the city treasurer for the benefit of appellant. Section 26-205 authorized an appeal from the award of the commissioners if taken within 30 days after the filing of their report. Appellant took no appeal within the prescribed period. Some time later, however, he brought the present equitable action in the Kansas District Court. His petition alleged that he had never been notified of the condemnation proceedings and knew nothing about them until after the time for appeal had passed. He charged that the newspaper publication authorized by the statute was not sufficient notice to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirements. He asked the court to enjoin the City of Hutchinson and its agents from entering or trespassing on the property "and for such other and further relief as to this Court seem(s) just and equitable." [Footnote 3] After a hearing, the Kansas trial chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It cannot be disputed that due process requires that an owner whose property is taken for public use must be given a hearing in determining just compensation. The right to a hearing is meaningless without notice. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, we gave thorough consideration to the problem of adequate notice under the Due Process Clause. That case establishes the rule that, if feasible, notice must be reasonably calculated to inform parties of proceedings which may directly and adversely affect their legally protected interests. [Footnote 4] We there called attention to the impossibility of setting up a rigid formula as to the kind of notice that must be given; notice required will vary with circumstances and conditions. We recognized chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Nothing in our prior decisions requires a holding that newspaper publication under the circumstances here provides adequate notice of a hearing to determine compensation. The State relies primarily on Huling v. Kaw Valley Railway & Improvement Co., 130 U. S. 559. We think that reliance is misplaced. Decided in 1889, that case upheld notice by publication in a condemnation proceeding on the ground that the landowner was a nonresident. Since appellant in this case is a resident of Kansas, we are not called upon to consider the extent to which Mullane may have undermined the reasoning of the Huling decision. [Footnote 6] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Appellant contends that the provision of Kan.Gen.Stat.1949, § 26-202, allowing notice of the hearing on compensation to be given by one publication in the official city newspaper of itself violates the provision of the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Fourteenth Amendment that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . ." [Footnote 2/1] The first issue that faces us, however, is to decide from the pleadings exactly what it is that we must decide in this case.
Once appellant discovered that his land had been condemned and that the time for appeal from the award of the commissioners had passed, various possible courses of action, followed separately or in combination and each raising different issues, were open to him. If he considered the award fair but still desired to keep his land, he could have contended that unconstitutionality of the notice for the hearing on compensation invalidated the taking. If he considered the award unfair, he could have chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
alleged in an appropriate action the unconstitutionality of the notice of the compensation hearing and the inadequacy of the compensation and sought to obtain fair compensation, see Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, or to restrain entry onto his land until he received a hearing under Kan.Gen.Stat.1949, § 26-202, or, making a further allegation of the invalidity of the taking, to obtain a permanent injunction. At this stage, it is not relevant for me to imply any opinion on the merits of any of these possible courses of action.
If the Kansas Supreme Court had construed the pleading of "irreparable damage" as implying a factual assertion that the award was less than the fair value of the land, I would accept that construction. See Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U. S. 260, 276 U. S. 267-268. But the Kansas Supreme Court did not construe the pleadings at all. It decided the case by upholding the constitutionality of the statute. Kansas has a right to make such an abstract determination for itself. This Court, however, can decide only "Cases" or "Controversies." U.S.Const., Art. III, § 2. It has no constitutional power to render advisory opinions. To assume that the Kansas courts construed these pleadings sub silentio as alleging monetary loss is to excogitate. A much more probable inference chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
is that, since the issue so controlling for this Court's jurisdiction was not raised in the pleadings, the Kansas court did not concern itself with it. In any event, lacking an explicit construction of the pleadings by the Kansas courts, we must construe the pleadings ourselves to decide what constitutional questions are here raised on the record as it comes to us. See Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429, 342 U. S. 432.
But the Court, without explicitly construing the pleadings, passes upon the constitutionality of Kan.Gen.Stat.1949, § 26-202. Without intimating any opinion whether, in the circumstances of this case, appellant was denied the due process required in determining fair compensation for property taken under the power of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
N DISTRICT COURT OF RENO COUNTY, KANSAS"
"AMENDED PETITION"
In weighing the "due process" of condemnation procedure, some reasonable balance must be struck between the needs of the public to acquire the property and the opportunity for a hearing as to the compensation to be paid for the property. Just compensation is constitutionally necessary, but the length and kind of notice of the proceeding to determine such compensation is largely a matter of legislative discretion. The minimum notice required by this statute may seem to some to be inadequate or undesirably short, but it was satisfactory to the lawmakers of Kansas. It also has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Kansas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. To proscribe it as violative of the Federal Constitution fails to allow adequate scope to local legislative discretion. Accordingly, while not passing upon the desirability of the statutory requirement chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
before us, I am not ready to hold that the Constitution of the United States prohibits the people of Kansas from choosing that standard. Particularly, I am not ready to throw a nationwide cloud of uncertainty upon the validity of condemnation proceedings based on compliance with similar local statutes. Since 1889, it has been settled that notice by publication in condemnation proceedings to take and to fix the value to be paid for the land of a nonresident comports with due process. Huling v. Kaw Valley Ry. & Imp. Co., 130 U. S. 559. See also North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U. S. 276, 268 U. S. 283-287; Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U. S. 57.