Connection lost
Server error
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A bank notified trust beneficiaries of a settlement hearing solely via newspaper publication. The Supreme Court held this notice was constitutionally inadequate for known beneficiaries, requiring a method, like mail, that is reasonably calculated to actually inform them.
Legal Significance: Established the constitutional standard for notice under the Due Process Clause: 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.”
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. established a common trust fund under New York law, pooling assets from numerous smaller trusts. The bank petitioned a New York court for a judicial settlement of its first account. A final decree on the accounting would be binding on all beneficiaries, terminating their rights to sue the trustee for mismanagement during that period. The only notice provided to beneficiaries was by publication in a local newspaper for four successive weeks, which complied with the New York Banking Law. This notice did not name the individual beneficiaries. The trustee, however, possessed the names and addresses of many current income beneficiaries, to whom it regularly sent income payments. Kenneth Mullane was appointed as special guardian for the income beneficiaries. He appeared specially to object, arguing that notice by publication alone, particularly for beneficiaries whose identities and whereabouts were known, was insufficient to afford them due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The New York courts upheld the statutory notice provision.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does notice by publication alone satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a judicial proceeding that will permanently adjudicate the rights of beneficiaries whose names and addresses are known to the trustee?
No. For beneficiaries whose names and addresses are known, notice by publication Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehe
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does notice by publication alone satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a judicial proceeding that will permanently adjudicate the rights of beneficiaries whose names and addresses are known to the trustee?
Conclusion
This case is a cornerstone of civil procedure, establishing the modern constitutional Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercita
Legal Rule
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volup
Legal Analysis
The Court, through Justice Jackson, established a flexible standard for procedural due Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Rule: Due process requires “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,