From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hanna v. Plumer
Hanna v. Plumer
Hanna v. Plumer tion in the instant case was whether Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure governing service of process should yield to
state rules governing the service of process in diversity
cases. The Court ruled that under the facts of this case,
federal courts shall apply the federal rule.
Background of the case
Supreme Court of the United States On February 6, 1963, petitioner, a citizen of Ohio, filed
Argued January 21, 1965 her complaint in the District Court for the District of
Decided April 26, 1965 Massachusetts, claiming damages in excess of $10,000 for
personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident
Full case Eddie V. Hanna v. Edward M. Plumer, Jr.,
name Executor in South Carolina, allegedly caused by the negligence of
one Louise Plumer Osgood, a Massachusetts citizen de-
Citations 380 U.S. 460 (more) ceased at the time of the filing of the complaint. Respon-
85 S. Ct. 1136; 14 L. Ed. 2d 8; 1965 U.S. LEXIS
dent, Mrs. Osgood’s executor and also a Massachusetts
1350; 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1
citizen, was named as defendant. The Massachusetts rule
Prior history Judgment for defendant, D. Mass., Oct. 17, at the time required personal service of process on the
1963; affirmed, 331 F.2d 157 (1st Cir. 1964) executor of an in-state defendant, while Fed. R. Civ. P. 4
Holding (e)(2)(b) required only that service be made on a compe-
tent adult at the residence of the defendant. The plain-
The adequacy of service of process in federal diversity
jurisdiction cases should be measured by the Federal Rules
tiff left process at the residence of the executor, and so
of Civil Procedure, not state rules.. First Circuit Court of complied with the federal rule but not the state rule. The
Appeals reversed. District Court granted summary judgment to the execu-
tor for the plaintiff’s failure to make adequate service
Court membership
of process, ruling that the state rule applied based on
Chief Justice the Supreme Court’s prior precedents. The United States
Earl Warren Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed.
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
The court’s decision
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion,
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart which held that the adoption of rule 4(d)(1) did not over-
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
step the constitutional boundaries or the legislative in-
Case opinions tent of Congress in enacting the Rules Enabling Act (28
U.S.C. 2072) noting that "...the test must be whether a
Majority Warren, joined by Douglas, Clark, Brennan, rule really regulates procedure..." Thus it was appropri-
Stewart, White, Goldberg
ate to apply Rule 4(d)(1) (now FRCP (4)(e)(2)) and not
Concurrence Black (without separate opinion) Massachusetts law in the Federal District Court. In reach-
ing this decision the Court stated that the rule that state
Concurrence Harlan
and federal courts should reach outcomes substantially
Laws applied the same was not a "talisman" and that there were more
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 197, § 9 (1958). basic principles governing Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and
its progeny (that is, cases dealing with how Federal
Hanna v. Plumer 380 U.S. 460 (1965), was a decision by the
Plumer, courts should apply state law). The purpose of Erie was
Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court to 1) discourage "forum shopping" and 2) avoid inequi-
further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and by table administration of laws. The instant case must be
what means federal courts are obliged to apply state law viewed in this light. While the outcome of the current
in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. The ques- case is determined by which law is applied, the rights in
question are not substantial enough to create problems
1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hanna v. Plumer
of unequal protection and because in Erie and its progeny substantive or procedural law, meaning that Harlan’s test
there was no explicit conflict between state and federal is somewhere in between the "outcome determinative
rules. Thus, in those cases the Court held not that state test" which gives extreme deference to state laws and the
rules trumped federal rules but that the federal rules, "forum shopping/equitable administration test" given in
narrowly construed, did not cover the dispute whereas in the case at hand, which states that a party must "substan-
the current case the federal and state laws are in direct tially" raise equal protection issues.
conflict and the court has been instructed to follow the
Federal Rule in these cases and there is no constitution-
al reason not to do so. In short, outcome determinative
See also
judgments are important under the American legal sys- • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume
tem for deciding if a state or federal rule applies but in 380
the current case denying the federal rule would remove
any power whatsoever the federal courts have over their
procedures. Harlan argued that forum shopping and eq-
External links
uitable administration of laws were not the only con- • Full text of case from Findlaw.com
cerns in Erie because public uncertainty over which laws • Rule 4(d)(1)
govern would be debilitating and therefore state law con- • Rule 4(e)(2)(b)
trols where it is an issue of affecting "primary decisions • Rules Enabling Act
respecting human conduct." Under this understanding • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
federal laws could be trumped by a state law, whether
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanna_v._Plumer&oldid=421548200"
Categories:
• United States Supreme Court cases
• Diversity jurisdiction case law
• 1965 in United States case law
This page was last modified on 30 March 2011 at 21:26. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
2