Hanna v. Plumer
| Hanna v. Plumer | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 21, 1965 Decided April 26, 1965 |
|
| Full case name | Eddie V. Hanna v. Edward M. Plumer, Jr., Executor |
| Citations | 380 U.S. 460 (more)
85 S. Ct. 1136; 14 L. Ed. 2d 8; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1350; 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1
|
| Prior history | 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 | |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 197, § 9 (1958). | |
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and by what means 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.
On February 6, 1963, petitioner, a citizen of Ohio, filed her complaint in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming damages in excess of $10,000 for personal injuries resulting from an 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.
...
Wikipedia