Mullane

Mullane refers to a landmark Supreme Court case, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), which significantly shaped the legal requirements for due process, specifically concerning notice to interested parties in legal proceedings. The case established that notice must be "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." This standard requires that the means of notification be something more than a mere gesture; it must be a method that a person desiring to actually inform the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.

The case arose from a New York state law that allowed a common trust fund to pool small trusts for more efficient management. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company, managing such a fund, sought judicial settlement of its account. Notice of the proceeding was provided only by publication in a local newspaper. Mullane, as a special guardian appointed to represent beneficiaries of the trust whose addresses were known, challenged the adequacy of this notice.

The Supreme Court held that notice by publication was insufficient for beneficiaries whose names and addresses were known to the trustee. The Court reasoned that the trustee had readily available means to provide more direct notice, such as mail, to those known beneficiaries. However, the Court acknowledged that notice by publication might be sufficient for beneficiaries whose interests or addresses were unknown or contingent.

The Mullane decision has had a profound and lasting impact on civil procedure and due process law in the United States. It has been cited in countless cases involving a wide range of legal issues, including class actions, probate proceedings, and foreclosure actions. The core principle established in Mullane remains a cornerstone of procedural fairness, ensuring that individuals are given a reasonable opportunity to be heard in matters that affect their rights and interests. It emphasizes a balance between the practicalities of legal administration and the constitutional right to due process.