to provide adequate notice of the procedures for reclaiming property. In City of West Covina v. Perkins, for example, the Supreme Court held that although government agents must give notice to property owners that their property has been taken “so that the owner[s] can pursue available remedies for [the] return” of their property, individualized notice of the remedies for return is not required where those remedies are “established by published, generally available state statutes and case law.” 525 U.S. at 240-41, 119 S.Ct. 678. The Court held that property owners can turn to these readily available “public sources” for specific instructions on how to reclaim their property. Id. at 241, 119 S.Ct. 678; see also Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 509, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563 (1903) (<HOLDING>). However, the principle of legislative notice
holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that notice to counsel may be waived holding that a town board could prevent an elected member from speaking at a town meeting where the board member could not identify any topic of discussion he was prevented from exploring during the meeting of the board to discuss the same issues where he was given ample time to speak holding that when a statute clearly fixes the time and place of meeting of a permitting board or tribunal additional notice to persons wishing to attain a permit may not be required recognizing requirement that state personnel board be a fair and impartial tribunal