Document: 371 U.S. 208 83 S.Ct. 279 9 L.Ed.2d 255 Madeline C. SCHROEDER, Appellant,v.CITY OF NEW YORK. No. 75. Argued Nov. 15, 1962. Decided Dec. 17, Louis B. Scheinman, Woodbourne, N.Y., for appellant. Theodore R. Lee, Kingston, appellee. Osmond K. Fraenkel, New York City, as amicus curiae on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 The question presented by this case is whether City deprived appellant due process law failing to give her adequate notice condemnation proceedings affecting certain property she owned Neversink River in Orange County, York. consisted a house and three one-half acres land, which family occupied only during months July August each year. 2 In 1952 city instituted proceeding under provisions Water Supply Act1 acquire right divert portion at point Sullivan York, some 25 miles upstream from appellant's property. Act, sets out procedure be followed Board condemning easements, rights real required water system, provides that such given affected landowners following manner: 3 'The corporation counsel shall Record, two public newspapers published other county any estate laid maps may located, it proposed proceeding, his intention make application court appointment commissioners appraisal * *. Such so published, once week, newspapers, six weeks immediately previous presentation petition; addition advertisement cause copies same hand bills posted up, space time least twenty conspicuous places line aqueduct or vicinity taken affected.'2 4 Act further all claims damages resulting city's acquisition are barred after years.3 5 Proceeding accordance with statute, caused its requisite number times Record 22 notices trees poles along seven-or eight-mile stretch river general premises. No was anywhere itself. County publication made were small communities many property, although there being larger towns nearby. month January, when premises vacant. Although name address readily ascertainable both deed records tax rolls, neither newspaper publications nor contained owner. Neither explained what action owner might take recover acquisition, did they intimate limit upon filing claim an 6 not file within three-year period prescribed Act. January 1960, however, brought present equitable trial court. Her complaint alleged had never been notified proceedings, knew nothing about them, against until consulted lawyer 1959. She violation law. granted motion judgment pleadings unreported holding 'the Section K41—8.0 Act—admittedly fully complied defendant'—were 'violative Federal State Constitutions *.' This affirmed Appellate Division,4 Court Appeals, judges dissenting.5 properly here appeal 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2). 7 We hold circumstances measure up quality Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment requires. 8 'An elementary fundamental requirement accorded finality reasonably calculated, circumstances, apprise interested parties pendency afford them opportunity their objections. Milliken v. Meyer, 311 457, 61 339, 85 L.Ed. 278; Grannis Ordean, 234 385, 34 779, 58 1363; Priest Trustees (the) Town Las Vegas, 232 604, 443, 751; Roller Holly, 176 398, 20 410, 44 520.' Mullane Central Hanover Tr. Co., 339 306, 314, 70 652, 657, 94 865. case, involved beneficiaries common trust fund, thoroughly canvassed problem sufficiency Clause, pointing reasons behind basic constitutional rule, well practical considerations impossible draw standard set specifications constitutionally notice, mechanically applied every situation. As emphasized Mullane, legally protected interests obviously vital corolary one most requisites process—the heard. 'This has little reality worth unless informed matter pending can choose himself appear default, acquiesce contest.' U.S., S.Ct., 657. recognized impossibility giving personal cases, those involving missing unknown persons. But inadequacies 'notice' described words bear repeating here: 10 'Chance alone brings attention even local resident type inserted back pages newspaper, if he makes home outside area newspaper's normal circulation odds information will reach him large indeed. chance actual reduced does whose supposed attract, inform acquaintances who call attention.' 315, 658. 11 rule emerges enough respect person known very easily directly question. 'Where names post office addresses hand, disappear resort means less likely than mails pendency.' 318, 659. 12 N.H. & H.R. 344 293, 296, 73 299, 301, 97 333, where pointed '(n) otice poor sometimes hopeless substitute service notice,' '(i)ts justification difficult best.' again Walker Hutchinson 352 112, 77 200, 178, factual situation much akin case. part land fix compensation official newspaper. held insufficient, noting 'was records,' '(e)ven letter would have apprised must wanted heard value.' 116, 202. 13 Decision before us we think clearly controlled stated specifically relevant It true publishing put signs banks river. no sign placed ever seen her. posting these signs, therefore, constitute enunciated 14 majority Appeals seems additionally drawn support assumption effect diversion apparent expiration statute filed. N.Y.2d, 526—527, 225 N.Y.S.2d, 213, 180 N.E.2d, 569—570. There allegation pleadings, decided putting consideration aside, knowledge change appearance far short diverted diversion.6 That obliged good faith effort personally appellant—an obligation mailing single discharged. 15 reversed remanded inconsistent opinion. ordered. 16 Judgment directions. Administrative Code Title K41. K41—8.0. K41—18.0. A.D.2d 183, 217 N.Y.S.2d 975. N.Y.2d 522, 210, N.E.2d 568. prayed enjoining diverting waters Neversink, courts construed pleading appropriate way raise adequacy assert issue damages. brief conceded entitled injunction. Cf. 114, n. 3, 201, 178. based impairment river's value 'bathing, swimming, fishing boating.' claimed allegedly resulted course, depth, configuration, but decrease velocity flow.

Category: 3