Whether the petitioners' due process rights were violated by the state's use of summary procedures that did not comport with the requirements of due process

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Layplb@t-T VOWS PhS Bel ONT ro Ctr ee— Doeun=0TS Hhovealgphe J oy THE Leer SUS: Gem cnn AS era Oly loos LADUE GQ Moet Oliz A dstaneton Ae Oe. Bsc! i faen ty fo the Sante hee | hiconr Forms THAT WOW 30 €C Line ¢ Alii rs ctoake Cecle SOL D9 CaS S64, ZO fed S648! Ses Aber Wem 5 Cie (PTET S Chee fuine ? fax he dfhlae bout Conn lee’ SPA [iO Ptoctiler! 3 Le THRE LAS pyshAt SE /eoTH Sibe Zell tior’ Abed porte, SSabex hus ,tolXsS Clauge? : CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Ybririasck Alice FIT RAS FEpaTY TEETH Aecnfte? CLUOSTIVUT (OU RL SECOUTE Lejéhe C00CAT CB. ESO FeART AEE (5 ERI Fieica FO hil PHOESS OF CAw). SRF Clr ne THe THE FPR SYM ~ | VAS LEPCHEED THE Alber tt $ (OK ) | — Samak CCOLHTOD STHPFUTE S04. 90 J, , Soy, 70 AbSas 7 Coriilisvti ce, Cinet (R&S tF AS AW SOV.§0 Ct) AO TEST UER 7 Cotte TT EE ee rae SUED CLBLIES, AID FEA Va onder . Tiles Li SOR) POPUCATIOAS Abi (OFT WOKS KG chars Ldn FRE COPS TILT MA) OF Fils MUTED STAECES AR) FE SEHFE OL ECKL Lea? SU STHaITIALY COtAt ed fay TAF MSE OF exdiser(3) THE AOTES T/C ¢ ONL ~ FURL Suutrtddg FET, MW SOY. Bo @) ype hate THAT £0 OCFEROH SAMO BE FOUND Query OF MAL CCOCAIOON acer Ae en . JEL (SCEVHE THE AWTS TIMER CF COM M>TTES.