Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hanna v. Plumer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1965 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureErie doctrineFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRules Enabling ActErieFederal RulesRule 4(d)(1)service of process

Facts

Petitioner, an Ohio citizen, sued respondent, a Massachusetts executor, in federal district court in Massachusetts for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident allegedly caused by a deceased Massachusetts citizen. Service was made by leaving copies of the summons and complaint with respondent's wife at his residence, which complied with Federal Rule 4(d)(1). Massachusetts General Laws chapter 197, section 9 required, for this kind of suit against an executor, service by delivery in hand, acceptance of service, or filing of a notice in probate within the prescribed time. Petitioner conceded noncompliance with the Massachusetts statute but argued that the Federal Rule governed service in diversity actions.

Issue

In a diversity action in federal court, where state law requires in-hand service on an executor but Federal Rule 4(d)(1) permits abode service, should the adequacy of service be measured by the state rule or by the Federal Rule? More broadly, does Erie require displacement of a directly applicable Federal Rule by conflicting state law?

Rule

If a situation is covered by a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the court applies that Rule unless the Rule exceeds the Rules Enabling Act or violates the Constitution. A Federal Rule is valid if it really regulates procedure, meaning the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law. In Erie analysis where no Federal Rule controls, outcome-determination must be understood with reference to Erie's twin aims: discouragement of forum-shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nadia Brooks, a citizen of Nevada, files a negligence action in federal district court in Illinois against Omar Velez, a citizen of Illinois, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Illinois law requires personal delivery to a defendant in this category of case, but a Federal Rule permits service by leaving the summons and complaint at the defendant's usual abode with a suitable resident, and Nadia does exactly that by leaving them with Omar's adult daughter at his Chicago home.

Which standard should the federal court use to determine whether service was valid?

Explanation. When a Federal Rule directly covers the disputed issue, the court applies that Rule unless it violates the Constitution or exceeds the Rules Enabling Act. A rule prescribing how a defendant is notified of suit regulates procedure—the judicial process for enforcing rights—and is valid even if it incidentally affects litigation outcomes. The majority held that Erie does not displace an applicable, valid Federal Rule merely because state law conflicts.