stating that the category of "persons missing or unknown” includes individuals "whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained” and noting that it is reasonable to dispense with actual notice to claimants “whose interests are either conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to [the] knowledge [of the debtor]”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the category of "persons missing or unknown” includes individuals "whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained” and noting that it is reasonable to dispense with actual notice to claimants “whose interests are either conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to [the] knowledge [of the debtor]”
- explaining that the “fun- damental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard[, which] * * * has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or con- test.” (Internal quotations and citation omitted.)
- holding that the settlement of a trust proceeding required more than publication notice to known beneficiaries and that notice had *694 to 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”
- stating that "[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is 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"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Brody v. Village of Port Chester, 434 F.3d 121 (2005)
Although a citizen generally has a duty to keep abreast of the laws affecting that property ownership, see North Laramie, 268 U.S. at 283, 45 S.Ct. 491, the rule established by Mullane and its progeny — specifically, that the condemnor must give as much notice as one desirous of actually informing a condemnee, to the extent such notice is practicable, Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315, 70 S.Ct. 652 — calls into question the c…
Distinguished
Distinguished by McCann v. Scaduto, 71 N.Y.2d 164 (1987)
We distinguished Mullane on the ground that the property holder there had no reason to expect that its property interest was being affected, while in the case of a tax sale, the taxpayer had notice of its obligation to pay taxes and of the consequences flowing from nonpay
Distinguished by Palazzi v. Estate of Gardner, 32 Ohio St. 3d 169 (1987)
Appellees contend that Mullane is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Burton,
dissenting.
These common trusts are available only when the instruments creating the participating trusts permit participation in the common fund. Whether or not further notice to beneficiaries should supplement the notice and representation here provided is properly within the discretion of the State. The Federal Constitution does not require it here.