Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Wisconsin v. Constantineau - 400 U.S. 433, 91 S. Ct. 507 (1971)

Rule:

Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential. Only when the whole proceedings leading to the pinning of an unsavory label on a person are aired can oppressive results be prevented.

Facts:

A Wisconsin statute provided that various persons could forbid in writing the sale or gift of intoxicating liquors to one who, by excessive drinking, produced described conditions or exhibited specified traits, such as exposing himself or his family to want or becoming dangerous to the peace of the community. Pursuant to this statute, a police chief, without giving the appellee advance notice or an opportunity to be heard, caused to be posted in all local retail liquor outlets a notice forbidding sales or gifts of liquor to the appellee. Suing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the appellee sought injunctive relief against the enforcement of the statute. A three-judge District Court granted injunctive relief, holding the statute violative of procedural due process because of the failure to provide notice of the intent to post and an opportunity to be heard.

Issue:

Was the Wisconsin statute which provides that various persons could forbid in writing, without notice and hearing, the sale or gift of intoxicating liquors to one who, by excessive drinking, produced described conditions or exhibited specified traits, such as exposing himself or his family to want or becoming dangerous to the peace of the community constitutional?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court affirmed and held that where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity was at stake because of government action, notice and an opportunity to be heard were essential. Even though the state courts had not ruled on the issue, abstention did not apply where there was no unresolved question of state law that only a state tribunal could authoritatively construe.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates