Constructive notice
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 339 U.S. 306 - Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · 1950Most cited · 18,116 citing opinions
adequacy test
When notice is a person's due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.
How the Supreme Court has restated “Constructive notice”
Each Supreme Court definition of “Constructive notice,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “Constructive notice”
Court decisions citing the 7 opinions that defined “Constructive notice” — 18,586 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 7 definitions, chronological · 1824–1950
- ORIGINAL
It must be admitted, that it was but constructive notice; but for every purpose essential to the protection of the mortgagee against the effect of those alienations, it is equivalent to a direct notice, and such is unquestionably the design of the registration laws... A purchaser, with notice, can be in no better situation than the person from whom he derives his title, and is bound by the same equity which would affect his rights.
registration
Constructive notice can only exist in the cases coming fairly within the provisions of the statutes authorizing the courts to make orders for publication, and providing that the publication, when made, shall authorize the courts to decree.
When a person has not actual notice he ought not to be treated as if he had notice unless the circumstances are such as enable the court to say, not only that he might have acquired, but also that he ought to have acquired it but for his gross negligence in the conduct of the business in question.
knowledge of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient to put a party upon inquiry, and to show that if he had exercised due diligence he would have ascertained the truth of the case, is equivalent to actual notice of the matter in respect to which the inquiry ought to have been made
they are chargeable with constructive notice of everything which, upon inquiry, they could have ascertained from the cestui que trust.
To charge one with notice, the facts must be such as ordinarily to excite inquiry as to the particular fact to be elicited.