翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Jones Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania ・ Jones Tract ・ Jones v Kaney ・ Jones v Kernott ・ Jones v Lipman ・ Jones v Lock ・ Jones v New Brunswick (AG) ・ Jones v Padavatton ・ Jones v Post Office ・ Jones v University of Manchester ・ Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. ・ Jones v. Bock ・ Jones v. City of Opelika (1942) ・ Jones v. Cunningham ・ Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC ・ Jones v. Flowers ・ Jones v. Harris Associates ・ Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union ・ Jones v. Racetrac Petroleum Inc. ・ Jones v. United States ・ Jones v. United States (1983) ・ Jones v. United States (1999) ・ Jones v. Van Zandt ・ Jones Valley ・ Jones Variety Hits ・ Jones Very ・ Jones Victor Mawulorm Dotse ・ Jones Warehouses ・ Jones! (New Zealand) ・ Jones' Battery Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Jones v. Flowers ： ウィキペディア英語版 Jones v. Flowers ''Jones v. Flowers'', , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the due process requirement that a state give notice to an owner before selling his property to satisfy his unpaid taxes. The Court ruled, 5-3,〔The ninth justice on the Court, Samuel Alito, did not participate, because he was confirmed fourteen days after the case was heard for argument.〕 that after a mailed notice was returned unclaimed, a state was required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to take additional reasonable steps to notify the owner before the sale could proceed.〔Though this case was decided under the Fourteenth Amendment, which only applies to the states, the Court interprets its due process protections the same as those under the Fifth Amendment, which applies to the federal government. The Court's ruling will accordingly be extended to actions taken by the federal government as well.〕 The Court's opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, his fourth majority opinion after his confirmation to the Court in 2005 and his first to provoke any dissenting opinions. The Court had last addressed the issue of notice in ''Dusenbery v. United States'', ,〔Interestingly, the majority opinion in ''Dusenbery'' was written by the previous chief justice, William Rehnquist.〕 which held that the government need only take steps reasonably calculated to provide notice even if actual notice is not achieved. The four justices who dissented in ''Dusenbery'' now formed the majority with Roberts in ''Jones v. Flowers'', distinguishing the prior case on the basis that the government in ''Dusenbery'' did not know that its method of notice had failed before the taking occurred. Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, believed the Court was instead undermining ''Dusenbery'', which he argued implicitly dictated a result contrary to the majority's decision. ==Background== 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Jones v. Flowers」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.