Changes

In ''oe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 413, 424 (1915), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that where a person has been deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of [[due process]], "it is no answer to say that in his particular case [[due process]] of law would have led to the same result because he had no adequate defense upon the merits."

In ''Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works'', 237 U. S. 413, 424 (1915), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that where a person has been deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of [[due process]], "it is no answer to say that in his particular case [[due process]] of law would have led to the same result because he had no adequate defense upon the merits."

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]