Jones v. Flowers
United States Supreme Court
547 U.S. 220 (2006)
- Written by Matthew Carney, JD
Facts
Gary Jones (plaintiff) owned a house at 717 North Bryan Street in Little Rock, Arkansas. Beginning in 1997, he began to fail to pay property taxes on the house. After three years of delinquency, the Commissioner of State Lands, Mark Wilcox (defendant) sent a letter via certified mail to Jones’ address, informing him of his delinquency and that he had two years to pay his back taxes or the property would be sold. The letter was returned as “unclaimed.” Two years after the letter was returned, Wilcox published a notice of public sale in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The advertisement did not receive a response, so a private sale of the property was arranged with Linda Flowers (defendant). Prior to the completion of the sale, Wilcox sent another letter to Jones, which was also returned as “unclaimed.” Flowers then purchased the house and personally served a detainer notice on the property, which was accepted by Jones’ daughter. Jones was notified and sued in Arkansas state court, arguing that the form of service employed by Wilcox was a constitutionally inadequate form of notice. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Flowers and Wilcox, which was affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.