Jones v. Flowers
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Jones v. Flowers?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the due process requirement that a state give notice to an owner before selling his property to satisfy his unpaid taxes. The Court ruled, 5-3,[1] that after a mailed notice was returned unclaimed, a state was required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to take additional reasonable steps to notify the owner before the sale could proceed.[2] The Court's opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, his fourth majority opinion after his confirmation to the Court in 2005 and his first to provoke any dissenting opinions.
Jones v. Flowers | |
---|---|
Argued January 17, 2006 Decided April 26, 2006 | |
Full case name | Gary Kent Jones v. Linda K. Flowers and Mark Wilcox, Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands |
Docket no. | 04-1477 |
Citations | 547 U.S. 220 (more) 126 S. Ct. 1708; 164 L. Ed. 2d 415; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3451; 74 U.S.L.W. 4200 (2006) |
Case history | |
Prior | Summary judgment granted to defendants, No. CIV2003-8565, Pulaski County Circuit Court; affirmed, 359 Ark. 443, 198 S.W.3d 520, 2004 Ark. LEXIS 722, No. 04-449, (Ark 2004); cert. granted, 545 U.S. 1165 (2005). |
Subsequent | 2008 Ark. LEXIS 267 (Apr. 17, 2008) (regarding attorney's fees) |
Holding | |
When the notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process requires the State to take additional reasonable steps to contact the property owner before it can sell his property. Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia, Kennedy |
Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
The Court had last addressed the issue of notice in Dusenbery v. United States,[3] which held that the government need only take steps reasonably calculated to provide notice even if actual notice is not achieved. The four justices who dissented in Dusenbery formed the majority with Roberts in Jones v. Flowers, distinguishing the prior case on the basis that the government in Dusenbery did not know that its method of notice had failed before the taking occurred. Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, believed the Court was instead undermining Dusenbery, which he argued implicitly dictated a result contrary to the majority's decision.