Skip to content

Civil ProcedureThe Erie doctrine

Hanna v. Plumer

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 26, 1965 · Core case

Full citation

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965).

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 16, 2026.

Hanna

injured plaintiffpetitioner

Plumer, Executor

executor of the estaterespondent

The parties: Hanna v. Plumer, Executor.

Brief

Facts

Hanna, a citizen of Ohio, claimed she was hurt in an automobile accident in South Carolina. She blamed the negligence of Louise Plumer Osgood, a Massachusetts citizen who had died by the time suit was filed. On February 6, 1963, Hanna sued in the federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming more than $10,000 in damages. The court's power to hear the case rested on diversity of citizenship (the parties were citizens of different States). The defendant was Plumer, Mrs. Osgood's executor (the person who manages a dead person's estate), also a Massachusetts citizen. On February 8, copies of the summons and complaint were left with Plumer's wife at his home. It was conceded that this complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1). That Rule allows service by leaving copies at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion who lives there. A Massachusetts statute, chapter 197, section 9, set a different rule. An executor need not answer a creditor's suit unless, within one year after he gave bond, he was served by delivery in hand, accepted service, or a notice of the claim was filed in the registry of probate. Plumer was not served in hand. The suit itself was filed in time; the dispute was only about the manner of service.

Issues

  1. In a federal diversity action, is the adequacy of service of process measured by Federal Rule 4(d)(1) or by a state statute that requires in-hand service on an executor?
  2. Does the Erie rule, as refined in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, require a federal court to apply a state rule instead of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that directly covers the point, whenever the choice would change the outcome?

Holding

Rule 4(d)(1) is valid under the Rules Enabling Act and the Constitution, so it, not the Massachusetts in-hand service requirement, governed service in Hanna's diversity suit. Because the service on Plumer concededly complied with the Rule, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Subscribers also get the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms, and the exam angle. Subscriptions open after the Kindle launch period.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/hanna-v-plumer