Hanna v. Plumer

E354848

Erie doctrine case United States Supreme Court case civil procedure case

Hanna v. Plumer is a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the application of the Erie doctrine by holding that valid Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern over conflicting state procedural laws in federal diversity actions.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Hanna v. Plumer canonical	2
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)	2

Statements (43)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Erie doctrine case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ civil procedure case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	civil procedure ⓘ federal courts ⓘ
citation	14 L. Ed. 2d 8 ⓘ 380 U.S. 460 ⓘ 85 S. Ct. 1136 ⓘ
citedFor	distinguishing between substance and procedure under Erie ⓘ limiting the scope of the outcome-determinative test ⓘ
concurrenceBy	John M. Harlan II ⓘ
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decision	judgment of the court of appeals reversed ⓘ
decisionDate	1965-01-18 ⓘ
docketNumber	50 ⓘ
doctrineClarified	Erie doctrine ⓘ outcome-determinative test under Erie ⓘ
federalRuleInvolved	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1) ⓘ
fullName	Hanna v. Plumer self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)
holding	Valid Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in federal diversity actions even when they conflict with state procedural rules ⓘ When a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is on point and valid under the Rules Enabling Act, it governs over conflicting state law ⓘ
impact	established framework for resolving conflicts between Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state law ⓘ frequently taught in U.S. law school civil procedure courses ⓘ
jurisdictionType	diversity jurisdiction ⓘ
keyPrinciple	Federal procedural rules valid under the Rules Enabling Act are not displaced by contrary state procedural rules in diversity cases ⓘ The Erie doctrine does not require application of state law when a directly applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is valid ⓘ
language	English ⓘ
legalIssue	application of Erie doctrine in diversity jurisdiction ⓘ conflict between Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state procedural law ⓘ
majorityOpinion	Warren, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Earl Warren ⓘ
petitioner	Hanna ⓘ
precedentFor	application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in diversity cases ⓘ
relatedCase	Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. ⓘ Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins ⓘ Guaranty Trust Co. v. York ⓘ
respondent	Plumer ⓘ
rulesEnablingAct	interpreted ⓘ
stateInvolved	Massachusetts ⓘ
stateLawInConflict	Massachusetts service-of-process rule requiring in-hand service on an executor ⓘ
timePeriod	Warren Court era ⓘ surface form: Warren Court
vote	7-2 ⓘ

Referenced by (4)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Rules Enabling Act → interpretedIn → Hanna v. Plumer ⓘ

Hanna v. Plumer → fullName → Hanna v. Plumer self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)

Erie doctrine → clarifiedByCase → Hanna v. Plumer ⓘ

Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2077 → interpretedIn → Hanna v. Plumer ⓘ

this entity surface form: Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)