that the [government] should adopt[]” but was leaving the determination as to how to provide adequate notice to each state. 547 U.S. at 238, 126 S.Ct. 1708 (quoting Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 445 n. 2, 102 S.Ct. 1874, 72 L.Ed.2d 249 (1982)). The Court detailed the different methods that states use as follow-up measures, including personal service, regular mail, posting a notice on the front door of the property, or addressing undeliverable mail to “occupant” rather than the individual’s name. Jones, 547 U.S. at 235, 126 S.Ct. 1708. This did not, in our view, constitute a holding by the Court of constitutional adequacy. The inquiry remains the same-what additional steps did the Clerk take when notice of the tax sale was returned as unclaimed. See id. at 238 n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 1708 (<HOLDING>) (citing § 197.522(2)(a), Fla. Slat.) (emphasis
holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail recognizing that some states including florida require that notice be posted on the property or at the propertys owners last known address  as a followup measure when personal service cannot be accomplished or certified mail is returned  holding sufficient notice by certified mail to both home address and place of immurement holding that a fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be an issue holding us mail sufficient to give notice but mail cannot be expected to notify person who is missing or unknown