Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co.
Citation: 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1950)
Facts
Central Hanover Bank established a common trust fund under New York law and gave notice of a judicial settlement of its accounts by publication in a local newspaper, as permitted by statute. Mullane, appointed as special guardian for beneficiaries whose interests might be adversely affected, objected that notice by publication was constitutionally insufficient.
Issue
Whether notice by publication in a local newspaper satisfies the Due Process Clause’s notice requirement for parties whose names and addresses are known to the trustee.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that notice by publication was constitutionally insufficient for known beneficiaries whose addresses were available. For those beneficiaries, due process required notice by mail or other means reasonably calculated to actually inform them.
Rule
Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt. Publication alone suffices only for parties whose whereabouts are unknown or who cannot be identified.
Significance
Mullane is the foundational due process notice case. Its “reasonably calculated” standard governs the constitutional adequacy of service of process in all civil proceedings and is a cornerstone of both Civil Procedure and Constitutional Law courses.