Wisconsin v. Constantineau
case brief
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
400 U.S. 433, 91 S. Ct.
507, 27 L. Ed. 2d 515 (1971)
Full Text: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9928640072601293565&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Full Text: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9928640072601293565&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellee
brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin seeking to have Wis. Stat. § 176.26 declared
unconstitutional, and a divided three-judge panel held the act
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court noted probable
jurisdiction.
FACTS: A chief of police, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 176.26 and without notice or hearing to appellee, caused to be posted a notice in retail liquor outlets that sales or gifts of liquors to appellee were forbidden for one year. Suit was brought claiming damages and asking for injunctive relief, and the State of Wisconsin intervened as defendant on the injunctive phase of the case, which was the only issue tried and decided.
HOLDING
A divided three-judge court held the law unconstitutional on its face and enjoined its enforcement.
DISCUSSION
In affirming the decision, the Court held that where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity was at stake because of government action, notice and an opportunity to be heard were essential. Even though the state courts had not ruled on the issue, abstention did not apply where there was no unresolved question of state law that only a state tribunal could authoritatively construe.
CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court affirmed the finding that the statute was unconstitutional, ruling that the interest was such that the requirements of procedural due process had to have been met.
See also: Abstention (Doctrine) definition - http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2014/04/abstention-doctrine-definition.html
---
FACTS: A chief of police, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 176.26 and without notice or hearing to appellee, caused to be posted a notice in retail liquor outlets that sales or gifts of liquors to appellee were forbidden for one year. Suit was brought claiming damages and asking for injunctive relief, and the State of Wisconsin intervened as defendant on the injunctive phase of the case, which was the only issue tried and decided.
HOLDING
A divided three-judge court held the law unconstitutional on its face and enjoined its enforcement.
DISCUSSION
In affirming the decision, the Court held that where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity was at stake because of government action, notice and an opportunity to be heard were essential. Even though the state courts had not ruled on the issue, abstention did not apply where there was no unresolved question of state law that only a state tribunal could authoritatively construe.
CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court affirmed the finding that the statute was unconstitutional, ruling that the interest was such that the requirements of procedural due process had to have been met.
See also: Abstention (Doctrine) definition - http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2014/04/abstention-doctrine-definition.html
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment