Difference between revisions of "Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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." | 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]] |
Latest revision as of 06:28, July 13, 2016
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."