Mullane VS. Central Hanover Bank and Trust CO.
Facts:
Central Hanover Bank (P) was the trustee of a common trust fund formed by pooling the assets of a number
of smaller trusts. Central Hanover Bank petitioned to the New York Surrogate’s Court for a judicial
settlement of the trust. The only notice provided to beneficiaries was via publication in a newspaper. Mullane
(D) was appointed attorney and special guardian for a number of beneficiaries who either were unknown
or did not appear.
Mullane objected to the statutory provision for notice by publication, arguing that it was unconstitutional for
lack of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Surrogate’s Court overruled Mullane’s objection
and the ruling was affirmed on appeal to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division and the New York
Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Issue:
WON the notice and the statutory provisions for notice to beneficiaries were inadequate to afford
due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
Held:
The Surrogate court held that the notice required and given was sufficient. However, in the New
York Banking Law that does not require notice to all persons whose whereabouts are known,
violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because contracting beneficiaries
by mail at their last known address is not particularly burdensome. Therefore, the judgement is
reversed since the basis for adjudication depriving known persons whose whereabouts are also
known substantial property rights.
LaChance Vs. Erickson
Facts:
The respondents were federal employees subject to adverse actions by their agencies, each
made false statements to agency investigators with respect to the misconduct with which they
were charged. In each case, the agency additionally charged the false statement as a ground for
adverse action. Separately, each employee appealed the actions taken against him ir her to the
Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board upheld the portion of each penalty based on the
underlying charge. The Board held that an employee’s false statement could not be used for
purposes of impeaching the employee’s credibility, nor could they be considered in setting the
appropriate punishment for employee’s underlying misconduct.
Issue:
WON either the due process clause or the civil service reform act (CSRA) precludes federal
agency from sanctioning an employee for making false statements to the agency
Held:
The Court held that neither the Fifth Amendment nor the Civil service reform act precludes a
federal agency for making false statement to the agency regarding this alleged employee related
misconduct. Chief Justice Renquist wrote that the core of due process is the right to notice and
meaningful opportunity to be heard but we reject, on the basis of both precedent and principle.
The view expressed by the court of appeals in this case that a meaningful opportunity to be heard
include a right to make false statements with respect to the charged conduct.
Civil Service Commission vs. Lucas
Facts:
Raquel Linatok filed with the office of filed with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture an affidavit-complaint against respondent Jose Lucas, a photographer of the same
agency for misconduct. The complaint stemmed from the alleged act of Jose Lucas of touching
and caressing complainant's thigh running down to her ankle. After a formal investigation by the
Board of Personnel Inquiry, it issued a resolution finding respondent guilty of simple misconduct
and recommending a penalty of suspension for one month and one day. The CSC, however,
found him guilty of grave misconduct and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the
service. The Court of Appeals set aside the CSC resolution and reinstated that of the board and
ruled that respondent was denied due process as he came to know of the modification of the
charge against him only when he received notice of the CSC resolution dismissing him from the
service. In its petition to the Supreme Court, petitioner contended that a formal charges in an
administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal
prosecution.
Issue:
WON respondent Lucas was denied due process when the CSC found him guilty of grave
misconduct on the charge of simple misconduct
Held:
Yes. As Lucas was merely charged with simple misconduct but was convicted of grave
misconduct, he was deprived of his right to due process. In which the Court held that “We sustain
the ruling of the Court of Appeals that: (a) a basic requirement of due process is that a person
must be duly informed of the charges against him and that (b) a person can not be convicted of a
crime with which he was not charged. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and
fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in investigations and
proceedings.”
