| 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 |
| 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 | |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 197, § 9 (1958). | |
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
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. The decision was drafted by John Hart Ely, who was then a law clerk for Earl Warren.