Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Mennonite Board Of Missions v. Adams

• 1982 • 462 U.S. 791 • Burger Court
In the Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams case in 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that mortgage holders must be notified personally before their property is sold at a tax sale. The court held that sending notice by mail or other means to ensure it's received satisfies due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision came after Elkhart County, Indiana sold property owned by Mennonite Board of Missions at a tax sale without providing personal notification about the...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1982
Docket: 82-11
462 U.S. 791
103 S. Ct. 2706
77 L. Ed. 2d 180
1983 U.S. LEXIS 76
Argued: Mar 30, 1983

Mennonite Board Of Missions v. Adams

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams case in 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that mortgage holders must be notified personally before their property is sold at a tax sale. The court held that sending notice by mail or other means to ensure it's received satisfies due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision came after Elkhart County, Indiana sold property owned by Mennonite Board of Missions at a tax sale without providing personal notification about the pending sale. Instead, they published an announcement in local newspapers and posted notices on bulletin boards around town which was deemed insufficient according to constitutional standards for notice-and-hearing procedures.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, Justice Blackmun argued that due process does not require actual notice in every instance but rather a method reasonably calculated to provide notice. He contended that Indiana's tax sale statute did meet this standard as it provided two notices by mail and publication before the property was sold. Furthermore, he noted that there is an obligation on mortgagees to protect their security interests and they should bear some responsibility for keeping informed about potential threats to those interests such as tax sales. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that additional efforts must be made by government officials beyond what was already required under state law.

Opinion written by Justice TMarshall
Decided: Jun 22, 1983
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms