Document: 380 U.S. 460 85 S.Ct. 1136 14 L.Ed.2d 8 Eddie V. HANNA, Petitioner,v.Edward M. PLUMER, Jr., Executor. No. 171. Argued Jan. 21, 1965. Decided April 26, Albert P. Zabin, Boston, Mass., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. James J. Fitzpatrick, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion 1 The question to be decided is whether, in a civil action where jurisdiction United States district court based upon diversity citizenship between parties, service process shall made manner prescribed state law or that set forth Rule 4(d)(1) Federal Rules Civil Procedure. 2 On February 6, 1963, citizen Ohio, filed her complaint District Court Massachusetts, claiming damages excess $10,000 personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident South Carolina, allegedly caused negligence one Louise Plumer Osgood, Massachusetts deceased at time filing complaint. Respondent, Mrs. Osgood's executor and also citizen, was named as defendant. 8, leaving copies summons with respondent's wife his residence, concededly compliance 4(d)(1), which provides: 3 'The served together. plaintiff furnish person making such are necessary. Service follows: 4 '(1) Upon individual other than infant incompetent person, delivering copy him personally thereof dwelling house usual place abode some suitable age discretion then residing therein * *.' 5 Respondent answer on alleging, inter alia, could not maintained because it had been brought 'contrary violation provisions General Laws (Ter.Ed.) Chapter 197, Section 9.' That section 6 'Except provided this chapter, administrator held creditor decrased commenced within year giving bond performance trust, said unless before expiration writ has delivery hand accepted notice stating name estate, address creditor, amount claim proper registry probate. *' Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., c. § 9 (1958). 7 October 17, granted motion summary judgment, citing Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 530, 69 1233, 93 L.Ed. 1520, Guaranty Trust Co. New York York, 326 99, 65 1464, 89 2079, support its conclusion adequacy measured 9, which, held, petitioner complied. appeal, admitted noncompliance but argued defines method effected actions. Appeals First Circuit, finding '(r)elatively recent amendments (to 9) evince clear legislative purpose require notification year,'1 concluded conflict federal rules over 'a substantive rather procedural matter,' unanimously affirmed. 331 F.2d 157. Because threat goal uniformity procedure posed decision below,2 we certiorari, 379 813, 52, 13 27. We conclude adoption designed control actions,3 neither exceeded congressional mandate embodied Enabling Act nor transgressed constitutional bounds, therefore standard against should have service. Accordingly, reverse Appeals. Act, 28 U.S.C. 2072 (1958 ed.), provides, pertinent part: 10 Supreme power prescribe, general rules, forms process, writs, pleadings, motions, practice courts 11 'Such abridge, enlarge modify any right preserve trial jury 12 Under cases construing scope clearly passes muster. Prescribing defendant notified suit instituted him, relates 'practice courts.' Cf. Insurance Bangs, 103 435, 439, 26 580. test must whether rule really regulates procedure, judicial enforcing rights duties recognized justly administering remedy redress disregard infraction them.' Sibbach Wilson 312 1, 14, 61 422, 426, 479.4 In Mississippi Pub. Corp. Murphree, 438, 66 242, 90 185, upheld 4(f), permits anywhere State (and merely district) sits: 15 'We think 4(f) harmony *. Undoubtedly most alterations may often do affect litigants. Congress' prohibition alteration litigants obviously addressed incidental effects necessarily attend new who, agreeably authorized determine their rights. 11—14, 425—427, 479. fact application will operate subject petitioner's adjudication northern undoubtedly those But does adjudicate rights.' Id., 445—446, 246. 16 Thus were there no conflicting would control. National Equipment Rental, Limited Szukhent, 375 311, 316, 84 411, 414, 354. However, respondent, focusing contrary rule, calls Court's attention another line cases, like Rules—had birth 1938. Erie R. Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 82 1188, overruling Swift Tyson, Pet. 865, sitting when deciding questions 'substantive' law, bound decisions well statutes. broad command identical Act: apply law. subsequent sharpened distinction substance following diverged markedly Act. Erie-type problems solved reference traditional common-sense substance-procedure distinction: 17 'And so statute limitations deemed matter 'procedure' sence. significantly result litigation controlling same parties court?' U.S., 109, S.Ct., 1470.5 18 placing primary reliance Ragan, suggests doctrine acts check Procedure, despite progeny demand rule. Reduced essentials, argument is: (1) Erie, refined demands whenever stead alter outcome case. (2) case, determination requirements obtain immediate victory If, hand, applicable, continue, possible petitioner. (3) Therefore, syllogism possesses appealing simplicity, several reasons invalid. 19 first place, doubtful that, even if in-hand required actions, obligated follow procedure. 'Outcome-determination' analysis never intended serve talisman. Byrd Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Cooperative, 356 525, 537, 78 893, 900, 953. Indeed, message itself choices automatic, 'litmus paper' criterion, policies underlying supra, 108—112, 1469—1471.6 20 rooted part realization unfair character materially differ court. 21 'Diversity conferred order prevent apprehended discrimination citizens state. Tyson (16 865) introduced grave noncitizens citizens. It enjoyed under unwritten 'general law' vary according enforcement sought court; privilege selecting determined noncitizen. Thus, rendered impossible equal protection law.' 74—75, 820—821.7 22 reaction 'forum-shopping' grown up response Tyson. 73—74, 819—820.8 attempt effectuate these demonstrated framed inquiry terms 'substantial' variations litigation. 1469. Not only nonsubstantial, trivial, likely raise sort troubled Erie; they unlikely influence choice forum. 'outcome-determination' cannot read without twin aims rule: discouragement forum-shopping avoidance inequitable administration laws.9 23 difference not, course point 'outcome-determinative' sense hold apply, respondent prevails, whereas governs, continue. every variation 'outcome-determinative.' For example, having court, insist file pleadings accord limits applicable courts, though timetable will, he continues meet limit, controversy him. So here. Though market effect litigation, two scant, any, relevance Petitioner, choosing forum, presented situation wholly bar recovery;10 rather, adherence resulted altering way served.11 Moreover, difficult argue permitting defendant's take inhand himself alters mode state-created fashion sufficiently alluded. 24 There is, however, more fundamental flaw syllogism: incorrect assumption Tompkins constitutes appropriate validity applicability invoked void Rule. true face governed Rules. holding each case commanded displacement inconsistent losing party urged, therefore, being covered dispute, 25 'Respondent contends charge correct 8(c) Procedure makes contributory affirmative defense. agree. covers pleading. burden establishing local (Erie 1188) apply.' Palmer Hoffman, 318 117, 63 477, 482, 87 645.12 (Here, course, clash unavoidable; says implicitly, unmistakable clarity—that courts.) At time, adjudicating Rules, applied refinements day continued decide concerning constitutionality specific light Sibbach. E.g., Schlagenhauf Holder, 104, 234, 152. 27 Nor development separate lines inadvertent. 'substance' shifts legal context changes. 'Each implies different variables depending particular problem used.' 108, 1469; Cook, Logical Legal Bases Conflict Laws, pp. 154—183 (1942). both say, roughly, 'procedural' need tests identical. very sorts decisions. When facing far cry typical, relatively unguided Choice: instructed Rule, can refuse Advisory Committee, Court, Congress erred prima facie judgment transgresses restrictions.13 reminded opinion14 can, guise formulating supported grant authority contained Article I Constitution; areas govern involved dealt (whether railroad owed duty care trespasser licensee), surely implied measures unconstitutional. provision system (augmented Necessary Proper Clause) carries make governing pleading turn includes regulate matters falling uncertain area rationally capable classification either. M'Culloch Maryland, Wheat. 421, 579. Neither ever suggested laid down coping situations applies coextensive limitation adverted. Although confronted direct collision relevant State,15 appeals faced clashes rightly discerned implications our 29 'One shaping purposes bring about getting away rules. This especially relate proceedings, traditionally exerted strong inherent power, completely aside powers expressly doctrine, extended bottle 'integral-relations' stoppers 'affirmative countervailing (federal) considerations' Congressional (the Rules) authority.' Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Wright, 322 759, 764 (C.A.5th Cir. 1963).16 30 offspring cast doubt long-recognized prescribe housekeeping inevitably comparable Herron Southern Pacific 283 91, 51 383, 75 857. 'When, happens non-resident, enforceable times, naturally enough, systems identic.' Cohen Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 541, 555, 1221, 1229. measuring standards Constitution, blind degree stray 13—14, 426—427, forgotten guidelines created altogether. To cease function disembowel either Constitution's exercise Act.17 valid controls instant 31 Reversed. 32 BLACK concurs result. 33 HARLAN, concurring. unquestionably now succeeded articulating workable respect effort clarify today's opinion. doing misconceived premises failed deal adequately past below relied. 34 something worried 'forum-shopping laws,' ante, p. 468, although sure important elements decision. always regarded modern cornerstones federalism, expressing profoundly touch allocation systems. activity citizens, alternative give rise debilitating uncertainty planning everyday affairs.1 And scheme Constitution envisions law-making functions processes undercut judiciary affecting affairs beyond bounds regard. commands private prevails. 35 shorthand formulations appeared prone carry untoward results frequently arise oversimplification. quite taken literally, proves too much, how 'procedural,' obeyed. turning 'outcome' back unadorned rationale falls prey oversimplification, simple much; choose forum what consider advantages try supposedly favorable judge. my mind approach determining stay close basic principles inquiring substantially respecting human conduct leaves regulation.2 If so, prevail, 36 weakens, indeed submerge, principle finding, effect, (compare 865), through it, setting body inviolate. 37 '(T)he either.' Ante, 472. (Emphasis supplied.) 38 long reasonable man characterize duly adopted misapprehend said, seriously frustrated State's regulation Since members Judicial Conference, who formulated presumably men, follows integrity absolute. Whereas unadulterated err toward honoring submit 'arguably procedural, ergo constitutional' moves fast direction. 39 relied 1528. Those deserve given them, particularly still good call affirmance reached Further, discussion illuminate 'diversity' thesis am advocating. 40 Kansas Despite provides commences complaint, tort period limitations, barred marshal did until after run. wrong. most, meant potential defendants defer few days satisfaction knowing sued period. stages torts arise, minimal behavior commission tort. circumstances interest proceeding own prevailed. 41 requiring small stockholder derivative post securing payment defense costs condition prosecuting action. Such 'outcome determinative'; win it. rationalizes ground might plaintiff's (ante, 469, n. 10), pointed out, much. view opinion, inhibit stockholders instituting 'strike suits,' thus expected substantial impact activity. Anyone during arose appreciate policy reflected statute. legitimate purporting problem. purported less effective deterrent strike suits, believe differs mine; attributes overriding force hard allowed operate, considerations lie realm authority. 42 remains present suits probate bond. evident intent permit distribute estate fear further liabilities outstanding liable. instead speed assurance estates distributed? As see substantial. mean simply courthouse impunity. seem enough real impingement vitality serve, concur providing 'answer statute, settlement estates, Spaulding McConnell, 307 Mass. 144, 146, N.E.2d 713, 715 (1940); Doyle Moylan, 141 F.Supp. 95 (D.C.D.Mass.1956), since timely commenced. (Respondent March 1962; 1963; propriety dispute—was 1963.) F.2d, 159. supra; supra. Generally, 'delivery hand,' alternatives: acceptance executor, claim, components out here, noted, insure executors receive actual claims. Parker Rich, 297 111, 113—114, 345, 347 (1937). Actual 4(d)(1); reflects achieved cumbersome 9. seems achieved; affidavit asserts service, allege lack notice. number satisfied 4(d)(1). See, e.g., Cal.Civ.Proc.Code subd. 8; Idaho Code Ann. 5—507, (1948); Ill.Rev.Stat., 110, 13.2 (1963); Ky.Rev.Stat., Civ.Proc., 4.04 (1962); Md.Ann.Code, Proc., 104 b Mich.Rev.Jud.Act 600.1912 (1961); N.C.Gen.Stat. 1—94 (1953); S.D.Code 33.0807(8) (Supp.1960); Tenn.Code 20—214 (1955). 'These all nature cognizable equity exceptions stated 81. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 1. come noted See 112—114, 239—241, Woods Interstate Realty 535, 1235, 1524; Bernhardt Polygraphic 350 198, 203—204, 207—208, 76 273, 276—277, 278—279, 100 199; cf. Iovino Waterson, 274 41, 46—47 (C.A.2d Cir.1959), cert. denied sub nom. Carlin Iovino, 362 949, 80 860, 867. Klaxon Stentor Electric Mfg. 313 487, 496, 1020, 1021, 1477; note 5, 538, 1237. Black White Taxicab Brown Yellow 276 518, 48 404, 72 681. seemed frame 'important' State. suggestion serves regards vital books amended times apparent relation among three observations surprising, addressing itself. One meaningfully ask asking 'important purpose?' importance relevant, failure enforce unfairly discriminate State, fortunes cause 108—109, 532, 1234; Similarly, court's refusal Jersey 1528, posting security plaintiffs stockholders' impel federal, state, Monarch Ohio Spach, 281 401, 412 1960). entertain thought suing led belief produce default judgment. notice, 10, 556, 1230; id., 557, 1230 (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting); 201—202, 275; generally 47—48. 13—15, 426—427; Appointment Committee Draft Unified System Equity Law 295 774; Orders re 302 783; Letter Submittal, 308 649; 1A Moore, Practice 0.501(2), 5027—5028 (2d ed. 1961). 77-79, 822—823; 202, 424; 105, 1467. (Illinois) forbade 35. 7, occurred (Indiana), 35, orders. 6—7, 10—11, 423. 424—425. D'Onofrio Construction Recon 255 904, 909—910 (C.A.1st 1958). 246; 46. parallel conflicting, into play Hart Wechsler, 678. Coop., Inc., 536—540, 900-902, 953, indicated procedures manifested employment. Compare Dice Akron, C. Y.R. 342 359, 312, 96 398. proportions.

Category: 8