Hanna v. Plumer

Supreme Court of United States
380 U.S. 460 (1965)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a diversity action, a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that is valid under the Rules Enabling Act and the Constitution governs service of process and other procedural matters, even if a conflicting state law would produce a different outcome.

Facts:

Petitioner Hanna, an Ohio citizen, was injured in an automobile accident in South Carolina.
The accident was allegedly caused by the negligence of Louise Plumer Osgood, a Massachusetts citizen.
Osgood later died, and Respondent Plumer, also a Massachusetts citizen, was appointed as the executor of her estate.
To commence a lawsuit, Hanna's representative served Plumer by leaving copies of the summons and complaint with Plumer's wife at his residence.
This method of service complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1) but not with the Massachusetts state law, which required in-hand personal service upon an executor.

Procedural Posture:

Hanna sued Plumer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on diversity of citizenship.
Plumer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing service was improper because it did not comply with Massachusetts law.
The District Court, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment for Plumer, holding that state law controlled.
Hanna, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, agreeing that the state's service rule was substantive and should apply.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a civil diversity action, does a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing the manner of service of process apply when a conflicting state law requires a different method of service?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Warren

Yes, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure applies. When a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is in direct conflict with a state law, the federal rule must be applied in federal court, provided it is a valid exercise of congressional authority. The validity of a Federal Rule depends on a two-part analysis: (1) whether the rule is within the scope of the Rules Enabling Act, which grants power to regulate matters of 'practice and procedure'; and (2) whether the rule is constitutional under Congress's power to create and regulate the federal court system. Rule 4(d)(1) governs the procedure for serving a defendant and is therefore a valid exercise of that authority. The outcome-determinative test from Erie and York is not the correct analysis when a valid Federal Rule is on point, as that test was designed for situations where no federal rule or statute governs. To hold that a Federal Rule must yield whenever it affects a state-created right would disembowel the constitutional grant of power over federal procedure.

Concurring - Justice Harlan

Yes, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure applies, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. The proper analysis should not be whether a rule is 'arguably procedural,' but whether the choice of rule would substantially affect primary, out-of-court decisions that state law is intended to regulate. The purpose of the Erie doctrine is to prevent conflicting systems of law from governing citizens' primary activities. Here, the Massachusetts service rule is not intended to regulate primary conduct like driving, but rather to ensure an executor can efficiently distribute an estate. Applying the federal service rule does not significantly undermine this state policy, as it only requires the executor to check his own home for notice. Therefore, since the state's interest in regulating primary conduct is not substantially affected, the federal system's interest in maintaining uniform procedures should prevail.

Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the Erie doctrine by establishing a two-track analysis for choice-of-law questions in diversity cases. It creates a clear hierarchy where a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, passed pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, will trump a conflicting state procedural rule. The decision limits the application of the Erie/York 'outcome-determinative' test to situations where there is no controlling federal rule on point. This strengthens the uniformity and supremacy of the Federal Rules, ensuring that procedure in federal courts is governed by a single, consistent set of standards rather than varying from state to state.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hanna v. Plumer (1965)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"