Walker v. Hutchinson City

PETITIONER: Walker
RESPONDENT: Hutchinson City
LOCATION: Kingsley Books, Inc.

DOCKET NO.: 13
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1956-1957)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 352 US 112 (1956)
ARGUED: Oct 15, 1956 / Oct 16, 1956
DECIDED: Dec 10, 1956

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Walker v. Hutchinson City

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 16, 1956 in Walker v. Hutchinson City

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 15, 1956 in Walker v. Hutchinson City

Earl Warren:

Number 13, Lee Walker versus City of Hutchinson, Reno County, Kansas et al.

Mr. Levy, you may proceed.

Herbert Monte Levy:

May it please the Court.

This case involves the issue of the constitutionality as against Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Kansas which permits the assessment of damages in condemnation proceedings upon publication, one time in the local city official paper of notice of the condemnation proceedings.

There is an alternative method provided in the statute for personal service which was not given to the petitioner here.

Petitioner here never received actual notice of the condemnation of his lands or of the assessment of damages, brought an injunction action to restrain the city from taking over the property, pressed his constitutional point hard and we are now here in regard to that constitutional point.

Earl Warren:

Where did petitioner live, Mr. Levy?

Herbert Monte Levy:

The petitioner --

Earl Warren:

He lived in the city?

Herbert Monte Levy:

Yes, sir.

The petitioner lived in the City of Hutchinson which was also in the same county.

That's on page 2 of the record.

Earl Warren:

Yes.

Herbert Monte Levy:

I might add that -- well, I think I'll omit that for the moment.

Harold Burton:

Did he live on the very premises that were at issue?

Herbert Monte Levy:

Yes, he did, Your Honor.

Actually, that does not appear clearly from the record.

There's no statement to that effect, but his address is given on page 2 of the transcript.

His address is the same property as that which was condemned, only part of it was condemned.

You can't tell it without looking at the maps, but I assume that we could take judicial notice of that.

Stanley Reed:

Was that -- is there a single notice or oath taking as a compensation?

Herbert Monte Levy:

That's correct, Your Honor.

There was no notice as in the point.

Stanley Reed:

Was the compensation fixed on the same day it was taken?

Herbert Monte Levy:

No, there was the -- as I understand the proceedings, they first would declare the property taken, then publish a notice of assessment of damages.

And that was the only thing that was published, I imagine --

Stanley Reed:

What -- what was published?

Herbert Monte Levy:

The notice that was published was a statement as to when and where damages would be taken.

Notice of condemnation, it reads.

Stanley Reed:

Well (Voice Overlap) --