Under Midlands rules, when a court considers judicial notice of adjudicative facts, which statement about the opportunity to be heard is correct?

• A. The party is entitled to be heard only if the court notifies them before taking judicial notice.
• B. The party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact, and if notice occurs before or after, the party remains entitled to be heard on timely request.
• C. The court's decision on judicial notice is final and cannot be challenged.
• D. The court must notify before taking judicial notice, and there is no hearing otherwise.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that when a court considers taking judicial notice of adjudicative facts, the party has a right to be heard on two things: whether it is proper to take the notice, and what exactly the noticed fact means. This right isn’t limited by when the notice is given. If a timely request is made, the party can speak up about both the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact, whether notice happens before or after the court acts.

This is why the correct statement captures both elements: it affirms the entitlement to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and on the nature of the fact, and it emphasizes that the opportunity to be heard remains available if a timely request is made, regardless of the timing of the notice. The other descriptions either suggest a hearing is limited to a specific timing or imply the court’s decision on notice is final with no challenge, which doesn’t align with the rule that due process allows a timely challenge and a hearing on these issues.