Walker v. City of Hutchinson

Background

Lee Walker, a Kansas homeowner, had part of his land condemned by the City of Hutchinson under a state statute that permitted notice of compensation hearings either in writing or by one publication in the official city paper. Walker received only the newspaper publication, the commissioners set damages at $725 which was deposited for his benefit, and he did not appeal within thirty days. He later sued in state court claiming he had never been notified and that publication alone violated the Due Process Clause. Kansas trial and supreme courts upheld the publication notice as sufficient.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether publication alone met the Fourteenth Amendment’s notice requirement. Applying Mullane, the Court said notice must be reasonably likely to inform interested persons when feasible. Because Walker was a known resident whose name appeared on city records, the Court found that personal or mailed notice was feasible and that mere newspaper publication often fails to inform owners. The Court reversed the Kansas decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its holding.

Real world impact

The ruling limits the use of publication-only notices in condemnation cases and makes it harder for cities to rely solely on newspaper notice when owners are known. Property owners must be given more direct notice when feasible, and local procedures that add mailing or personal service will better satisfy due process. The opinion prompted a statutory amendment in Kansas requiring mailing notice to owners’ last known address when possible.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented. One argued the complaint did not allege inadequate compensation and so the taking remained valid; another emphasized legislative discretion to set notice rules and would have affirmed.