Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865, 339 U.S. 306, 94 L. Ed. 2d 865, 70 S. Ct. 652, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2070, SCDB 1949-066
tl;dr:
A common trust fund informed non-resident beneficiaries of impending settlement via publication in a newspaper, despite having their contact information. This was in violation of due process.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1950 case Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., the US Supreme Court dealt with the issue of due process and notice in legal proceedings. The case involved a bank in New York that created a common trust fund by combining smaller trusts. When the bank requested a court settlement for this fund, it only notified beneficiaries via a newspaper ad, as allowed by state law.
However, some beneficiaries lived outside New York, while others were unknown or hard to find. A special guardian appointed for their interests argued that this form of notification didn't meet due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the newspaper notice wasn't enough to satisfy due process.
The court used a "reasonableness" test for notification, requiring it to be an adequate method for informing affected parties about the action and giving them a chance to object. While the newspaper ad was acceptable for unknown or hard-to-find beneficiaries, those who were known or easy to locate should have been contacted through mail or other direct methods.
The court clarified that due process doesn't demand personal service or actual notice, but rather a reasonable effort to inform affected parties. This case is significant because it clarified due process requirements and differentiated between different types of beneficiaries. It remains an authority on this issue today.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
This case concerns the constitutionality of notice to beneficiaries on judicial settlement of accounts by the trustee of a common trust fund established under the New York Banking Law. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the statutory notice does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but the lower court erred in not providing adequate notice to the beneficiaries. The Due Process Clause requires that notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case be given before deprivation of life, liberty, or property by adjudication. Constructive notice is appropriate when it is reasonably calculated to inform interested parties of the action and give them an opportunity to present their objections. The notice must be sufficient to convey the necessary information and allow a reasonable amount of time for those involved to appear. Publication of legal notices alone is not sufficient to inform interested parties about their rights in court.
Justice Burton's dissenting opinion argues that common trusts are only permitted if the trust documents explicitly allow beneficiaries to participate in the common fund. The decision to give beneficiaries extra notice is left to the state's discretion and is not mandatory under the Federal Constitution in this particular case.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.