met constitutional requirements. 3. Plaintiffs Claim Challenging Constitutionality of Louisiana Fi Fa Procedures (a) Constitutionality of Procedures Used A close reading of the plaintiffs’ complaint reveals that they are challenging the constitutionality of the Louisiana statutory scheme in so far as it allows creditors to pursue a writ of fi fa before the underlying judgment is final without judicial approval. Due process requires, at a minimum, “that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 656-57, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); see also Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Although there are no cases directly
holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice holding that notice by mail or other means as certain to insure actual notice is minimum constitutional precondition holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that if persons identity is known under mullane due process requires notice by such means as is certain to ensure actual notice holding that actual notice by mail in conjunction with published notice was best possible notice satisfying rule 23c