Hanna v. Plumer
Hanna v. Plumer | |
---|---|
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment 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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Warren, joined by Douglas, Clark, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg |
Concurrence | Black (without separate opinion) |
Concurrence | Harlan |
Laws applied | |
Mass. Gen. Laws , c. 197, ยง 9 (1958). |
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
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
- Erie Doctrine
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 380
- John Hart Ely
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. (applying Hanna's analysis to Fed. R. Civ. P. 3's effect on the tolling of statutes of limitations)
- Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods (applying Hanna's analysis to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38's grant of discretion to judges in administering penalties for frivolous appeals in light of Alabama's mandatory penalty)
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. (applying Hanna's analysis to 28 USC 1404 (change of venue) in light of Alabama's policy against forum selection clauses)
Further reading
- McCoid, John C. II (1965). "Hanna v. Plumer: The Erie Doctrine Changes Shape". JSTOR 1071510.
External links
- Text of Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Rule 4(d)(1)
- Rule 4(e)(2)(b)
- Rules Enabling Act
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure