In the 1949 case Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter of due process in relation to trust law. The bank had established a common trust fund and sought judicial approval for its accounts, notifying beneficiaries by newspaper publication only, which was allowed under New York state law at that time. One beneficiary's guardian, Mullane, challenged this method of notification as insufficient under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court agreed with Mullane and held that notice must be reasonably calculated to inform parties about proceedings affecting their interests; mere newspaper publication did not meet this standard when addresses or identities were known or could be discovered through reasonable effort.

In the dissenting opinion for Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to require individual notice in all cases where it is practicable and not unduly burdensome was an impractical standard that would impose a heavy burden on trust companies. He contended that this ruling could potentially disrupt many existing trusts, as well as discourage future ones due to increased costs and risks associated with providing personal notification. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how far-reaching this new rule might be applied beyond just common trust funds, possibly extending into other areas of law such as taxation or corporate activities. Ultimately, Justice Jackson believed the Court should have deferred more to legislative judgment regarding what constitutes adequate notice rather than creating its own broad standard.