State v. Atwood
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Dissent
Judge Martin
dissenting:
The minimum requirements of procedural due process with respect to notice and hearing were not met in the present case. The U. S. Supreme Court has often dealt with the question of what constitutes “the right to be heard” within the meaning of procedural due process. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 94 L.Ed. 865, 70 S.Ct. 652 (1949), the Court said that the “. . . right to be heard has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest.” In…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- State v. TeasleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
- State v. TeasleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Carson v. GodwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. HughesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969