Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed. 2d 8, SCDB 1964-076, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1350
Tags: Civil Procedure, Choice of Law
tl;dr:
Focus on the purpose of the Erie Doctrine to narrow the outcome determinative application further, and apply federal law only when it is truly procedural (even if the outcome is affected).Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1965 case, Hanna v. Plumer, the US Supreme Court addressed a conflict between federal rules and state laws regarding service of process. The case reached the highest federal court after lower courts dismissed a lawsuit against an estate executor for not following state law requiring personal service. Hanna, the plaintiff, argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (d) (1), which allowed service by leaving copies at the defendant's dwelling, should apply.
The main question was whether federal rules or state law should govern service of process in a diversity action. The court decided that the federal rule should apply because it followed the Rules Enabling Act and the Constitution. The court also found that the federal rule did not violate Article III or the Tenth Amendment, which limit federal courts' power and reserve powers for the states.
The Erie doctrine, which requires federal courts to apply state law in diversity cases, was deemed inapplicable if corresponding federal rules were valid. The court rejected a mechanical formula for the outcome-determination test and highlighted policies aiming to discourage forum shopping and ensure fair administration of laws.
Hanna v. Plumer is significant as it demonstrates how courts interpret federal rules and state laws in diversity cases and apply the Erie doctrine. Additionally, it shows how courts balance uniformity and federalism in civil procedures. The influential case features an opinion by Chief Justice Warren.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 4(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the standard for measuring the adequacy of service of process in civil actions based on diversity of citizenship. The Court clarified that federal courts sitting in diversity cases are bound by state court decisions and statutes when deciding questions of substantive law, but the question is not whether a law is deemed a matter of procedure, but whether disregarding a state law would significantly affect the result of a litigation for a federal court. The Court rejected the argument that the Erie doctrine requires federal courts to apply state law whenever application of federal law will alter the outcome of the case. The inquiry should focus on substantial variations between state and federal litigation, as trivial variations are unlikely to raise equal protection issues or influence forum choice.
Justice Harlan, concurring with the Court's opinion in Erie, believes that the Court has not adequately addressed past decisions relied upon by lower courts and has misunderstood the constitutional basis of Erie. He suggests that the Court needs to establish a more effective doctrine for choice of law in diversity cases. Erie is a cornerstone of federalism, recognizing the importance of having one system of law governing primary private activity in diversity cases to avoid uncertainty and hindered planning. The author disagrees with the decision in Ragan, arguing that the federal system's interest in proceeding under its own rules should have prevailed, as the choice of the Federal Rule would have had minimal impact on behavior following the commission of the tort.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.