Arkansas Blog

Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas dissented.

Has Justice Thomas ever failed to give thumbs down on anything? Anything?

This reminds me of the eminent domain case, but in this case they ruled for the property owner. Supreme Court rulings are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

For those who only allow strict interpretation of the constitution, what's the constitution say about required steps for notification of property owners in nonpayment of tax cases?

Good point, Patrick. Those Reagan-Bush appointed Justices don't get it, but I expect to hear Asa Hutchinson praising the Clinton-appointed Justices who voted for the owners of private property.

Scalia is a statist. Always upholds the power of the state, one way or another. He is a true danger to a democratic republic.
_

So Certifified Mail (meaning the recipient signs for the letter) is not sufficient notice?

Sounds like Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas think certified mail is an acceptable form of notice. Their descent indicates the state made every effort required to notify the owner of the pending action.

This decision now means what? By just reading the headline, Are the other justices saying certified mail is not acceptable for notice to appear or action could take place for any remedy?

anonymous, did you read the story link? A certified letter was sent and came back unsigned because the guy hadn't lived there in years. So the majority felt that, no, notice that clearly wasn't received wasn't sufficient.

So he moved out in 1993, continued to pay the mortgage until it was paid off in 2000

Then because his mortgage was paying the property tax, he didn't pay the taxes once the mortgage was finished.

His daughter then tells him the property isnt there in 2002 because the state sold the house for failure to pay back taxes.

Sounds like he purposefully or due to his daughter not telling the tax man was looking for him, failed to accept the certified letters beginning in 2000.

as many on here would screem, he did just as much to harm school funding as a tif is accused of by trying to avoid paying the real property tax burder.

So he moved out in 1993, continued to pay the mortgage until it was paid off in 2000

Then because his mortgage was paying the property tax, he didn't pay the taxes once the mortgage was finished.

His daughter then tells him the property isnt there in 2002 because the state sold the house for failure to pay back taxes.

Sounds like he purposefully or due to his daughter not telling the tax man was looking for him, failed to accept the certified letters beginning in 2000.

as many on here would screem, he did just as much to harm school funding as a tif is accused of by trying to avoid paying the real property tax burder.

His daughter was residing in the home during the notice attempts.

She was evicted after the property was sold. That's when she told her dad what was going on.

Who argued this case on behalf of the State?

Who argued this case on behalf of the State?
Posted by: Beebe????

Wasn't Beebe, the case was argued by private counsel obtained by the Land Commissiners Office. Nice try though.

i am happy mostly - though terribly sick at times - the medicine is not a perfect fix - i think some weed would help but caant find any - Kant find any...

Ahan! Supreme court has got a heap of blob! Though good for others.