Also known as: Hanna · Hanna v. Plumer Part I
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle of federal civil procedure holding that a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs in a diversity case even when it conflicts with a state rule. The federal rule controls provided it is at least arguably procedural and consistent with the Rules Enabling Act.
Hannah Hughes sued the executor of an estate in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. She served process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1) by leaving copies at the executor's home with a person of suitable age. The executor moved to dismiss for improper service under a stricter state statute. The court denied the motion because the federal rule was on point and valid.
Heidi Henderson obtained a large verdict in a diversity case. The defendant moved for a new trial or remittitur citing a state standard that required the court to set aside awards deviating materially from reasonable compensation. The district court applied the state standard to the motion but used federal abuse-of-discretion review on appeal. The federal rule on the mode of review controlled.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hazel Hoffman filed a habeas petition in federal court after a state conviction. A state rule required filing within a shorter period than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 allowed. The court applied the federal timing rule because it was valid and on point in the federal proceeding.
Hope Howard won a judgment in federal diversity court. The defendant appealed and posted a bond. A state statute imposed an automatic affirmance penalty on the appellant. The court refused to apply the state penalty because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 addressed the same subject and controlled.
Hamid Hassan sued in federal court despite a contract clause selecting a state forum. A state rule would have enforced the clause strictly. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) instead because the federal statute was on point and valid under Hanna Part I.
Helena Hoffman prevailed in a diversity action and sought attorney fees under a federal statute. A state rule limited fee awards in similar cases. The court granted fees under the federal provision because it was valid and directly addressed the issue.
Hanna Part I requires application of the federal rule whenever a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is directly on point. The rule must be at least arguably procedural and within the scope of the Rules Enabling Act. State law yields even if the outcome differs.
Supporting sources
Hanna Part I applies when a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is on point and valid. The forum-shopping test applies only when no federal directive governs the issue. The two inquiries are sequential.
Supporting sources
No. If the federal rule would abridge, enlarge, or modify a substantive right, it falls outside the Rules Enabling Act and Hanna Part I does not authorize its application. The rule must remain procedural in character.
Supporting sources
Hanna v. Plumer <!-- acedexams opinion md v1 -- Case information - Citation: 380 U.S. 460 (1965) Majority opinion Opinion of Chief Justice Warren The question to be decided is…