Grannis v. Ordean
Citations
- 234 U.S. 385
- 34 S. Ct. 779
- 58 L. Ed. 1363
- 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1158
Syllabus
<p>Where the trial court did not infringe any Federal right of plaintiff in error, but the decision of the appellate court .ran counter to the alleged Federal right which was raised on petition for reargument and specif- . ically passed on and overruled in refusing the reargument, this court has jurisdiction under § 237, Judicial Code, to review the judgment.</p> <p>In determining what is due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a distinction between actions in personam and actions in rem; in the former judgments without personal service within the State are devoid of Validity either within or without the State but in the latter the judgment although based on service by publication may be valid so far as it affects property within the State. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714.</p> <p>Where a State has jurisdiction over the res the judgment of the court to which that jurisdiction is confided, in order to be binding with reápeet to the interest of a non-resident not served with process within the State, must be based upon constructive service by mailing, publication or otherwise in accordance with the law of the State.</p> <p>This court must exercise an independent judgment as to whether the process sanctioned by the court of last resort of the State constituted due process of law; it is not bound by, nor can it merely accept, the decision of the state court on that question.</p> <p>While the fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard, that does not impose an unattainable standard of accuracy; and a defendant served with process either personally, or by publication and mailing, in which his name is misspelled cannot safely ignore it on account of the misnomer.</p> <p>The general rule in cases of constructive service of process by publication tends to strictness, but even in names due process of law does not require ideal accuracy.</p> <p>In constructive service of process by publication and mailing where t
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that the fundamental requisite of due process is the right to be heard; the fact that notice constitutes due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is no longer open to question
- rejecting argument that slight misspelling of the 16 defendant’s name on summons rendered it ineffective
- finding the misspelling of a Defendant’s name immaterial when service of process was mailed to the Defendant’s address
- “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.”
- “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.”
- “The fundamental requisite of due 4 process of law is the opportunity to be heard.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Pitney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
519 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court· 1974-06-26· cited 12,327×
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1950-06-05· cited 10,395×
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court· 1970-05-04· cited 5,926×
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court· 1972-10-10· cited 3,921×
- Goss v. LopezSupreme Court· 1975-01-22· cited 3,014×
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court· 1965-04-27· cited 2,943×
- Crane v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-06-09· cited 2,651×
- Davis v. SchererSupreme Court· 1984-08-16· cited 2,605×
- Arnett v. KennedySupreme Court· 1974-06-17· cited 2,038×
- United States v. SchefferSupreme Court· 1998-03-31· cited 1,617×
- Ford v. WainwrightSupreme Court· 1986-06-26· cited 1,525×
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court· 1983-06-22· cited 1,416×
- Williams v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1943-01-04· cited 1,003×
- Dusenbery v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2002-01-08· cited 924×
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of New Jersey· 2004-10-19· cited 820×
- Michael H. v. Gerald D.Supreme Court· 1989-08-30· cited 719×
- Barry v. BarchiSupreme Court· 1979-06-25· cited 653×
- Schroeder v. City of New YorkSupreme Court· 1962-12-17· cited 569×
- Pfahler v. National Latex Products Co.Sixth Circuit· 2007-12-14· cited 412×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court· 1856-04-25· cited 348×
- Roller v. HollySupreme Court· 1900-02-26· cited 242×
- Simon v. CraftSupreme Court· 1901-05-27· cited 175×
- Mallett v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1901-05-20· cited 156×
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. SchmidtSupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 124×
- Guaranty Trust and Safe Deposit Co. v. Green Cove Springs and Melrose RailroadSupreme Court· 1891-03-09· cited 123×
- Huling v. Kaw Valley Railway & Improvement Co.Supreme Court· 1889-05-13· cited 118×
- Kentucky Union Co. v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1911-01-03· cited 88×
- Priest v. Trustees of Town of Las VegasSupreme Court· 1914-03-16· cited 86×
- Jacob v. RobertsSupreme Court· 1912-02-19· cited 43×
- Hassall v. WilcoxSupreme Court· 1889-04-22· cited 41×
- Lynch v. MurphySupreme Court· 1896-03-02· cited 18×
- Lindsey v. DelanoSupreme Court of Iowa· 1889-10-08· cited 12×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.