Case BriefCiv Pro, personal jurisdiction, constitutional requirement of notice. Bauer 3/7/15Identity of CaseMullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 Y,S, 306 (1950)Page 325 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryHanover runs a common trust fund, and each year it has to (by law) judicially settle it. Basically, it goes tocourt, says this is what we did with your money, invites any beneficiary to object, and if they don’t, they can’t object and the year goes on. Mullane was the attorney representing “persons known” who had not responded to the notice/summons. Hanover complied with the minimum requirement of the law, publishing notice of service in the newspaper. Mullane objects that this is insufficient notice and therefore unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, since property rights of the known and unknown beneficiaries are affected. Statement of the IssueDoes complying with the minimum under the law provide sufficient notice? HoldingFor persons known, no. For persons unknown, yes. ReasoningThe law can require whatever level of notice is reasonable, so long as it is sufficient under the 14th amendment to provide due process of law. For persons known, it is incredibly likely that the bank knows where they are, has been sending them checks already, and can easily send them a letter. Although these letters are more expensive than publication, they aren’t unreasonable. For persons unknown, it is a bit unreasonable to ask the bank to track them down. How can they find them if they don’t even know who they are? Publication is fine.
View Full Document
Unlocking...