Hanna v. Plumer

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Hanna v. Plumer
U.S. LEXIS 1350; 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendant, D. Mass., October 17, 1963; affirmed, 331 F.2d 157 (1st Cir. 1964)
Holding
The adequacy of service of process in federal diversity jurisdiction cases should be measured by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not state rules. First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Case opinions
MajorityWarren, joined by Douglas, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg
ConcurrenceBlack (without separate opinion)
ConcurrenceHarlan
Laws applied
Mass. Gen. Laws
, c. 197, ยง 9 (1958).

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), was a decision by the

federal courts are obliged to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. The question 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. The decision was drafted by John Hart Ely, who was then a law clerk for Earl Warren
.

Background of the case

On February 6, 1963, petitioner, a citizen of Ohio, filed her complaint in the

automobile accident in South Carolina, allegedly caused by the negligence of one Louise Plumer Osgood, a Massachusetts citizen deceased at the time of the filing of the complaint. Respondent, Mrs. Osgood's executor and also a Massachusetts citizen, was named as defendant. The Massachusetts rule at the time required personal service of process on the executor of an in-state defendant, while Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (d)(1) required only that service be made on a competent adult who resides at the residence of the defendant. The plaintiff left process at the residence of the executor, and so complied with the federal rule but not the state rule. The District Court granted summary judgment to the executor for the plaintiff's failure to make adequate service of process, ruling that the state rule applied based on the Supreme Court's prior precedents. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirmed.

The Court's decision

public
uncertainty over which laws govern would be debilitating and therefore state law controls where it is an issue of affecting "primary decisions respecting human conduct." Under this understanding federal laws could be trumped by a state law, whether substantive or procedural law, meaning that Harlan's test is somewhere in between the "outcome determinative test" which gives extreme deference to state laws and the "forum shopping/equitable administration test" given in the case at hand, which states that a party must "substantially" raise equal protection issues.

See also

Further reading

  • McCoid, John C. II (1965). "Hanna v. Plumer: The Erie Doctrine Changes Shape".
    JSTOR 1071510
    .

External links