Editing Hanna v. Plumer
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Facts''': Plaintiff filed suit in District Court for the District of Massachusetts against executor of Louis Plumer Osgood. Mrs. Osgood's negligence allegedly caused an auto accident in South Carolina. Service was made by giving summons and the complaint to the executor's wife at their home while the executor was away. Mass. state law says that an action must be delivered into the hands of the executor of an estate. Federal Rules of Procedure says that the service can be left at the dwelling house with someone of suitable age and discretion. Thus, if state law is followed, service was okay. If federal laws of procedure are followed, service didn't qualify and case is dismissed. | '''Facts''': Plaintiff filed suit in District Court for the District of Massachusetts against executor of Louis Plumer Osgood. Mrs. Osgood's negligence allegedly caused an auto accident in South Carolina. Service was made by giving summons and the complaint to the executor's wife at their home while the executor was away. Mass. state law says that an action must be delivered into the hands of the executor of an estate. Federal Rules of Procedure says that the service can be left at the dwelling house with someone of suitable age and discretion. Thus, if state law is followed, service was okay. If federal laws of procedure are followed, service didn't qualify and case is dismissed. | ||
Line 19: | Line 14: | ||
'''Comments''': The concurring opinion stated that the court majority opinion oversimplified the question - "a reasonable man could characterize any duly adopted federal rule as 'procedural,' the court . . . would have it apply no matter how seriously it frustrated a State's substantive regulation of the primary conduct and affairs of its citizens." | '''Comments''': The concurring opinion stated that the court majority opinion oversimplified the question - "a reasonable man could characterize any duly adopted federal rule as 'procedural,' the court . . . would have it apply no matter how seriously it frustrated a State's substantive regulation of the primary conduct and affairs of its citizens." | ||
[[Category:Cases:Civil Procedure]] |