Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Glannon
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
Citation:339 US 306 (1950)
ProfessorBrittany L. Raposa
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. established a common trust fund, which pooled small trust estates into one larger fund, pursuant to provisions of the New York state banking law. The minimum requirements for notice of the creation of the fund under the New York banking law, and the notice provided by Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., was notice by publication. Mullane, as special guardian appointed to represent the interests of persons who had or might have an interest in the income of the common trust fund, appeared specially after the bank brought a petition for settlement of trust accounts. Mullane complained that notice and statutory provisions for notice to the trust beneficiaries, which permitted notice by publication, did not comport with due process, and that jurisdiction over them was therefore lacking. The New York trial court held that the notice required and given was sufficient. New York’s intermediate appellate court and highest state court (New York Court of Appeals) affirmed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.