Hanna v. Plumer
E354848
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.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hanna v. Plumer canonical | 2 |
| Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3392331 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hanna v. Plumer Context triple: [Rules Enabling Act, interpretedIn, Hanna v. Plumer]
-
A.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
B.
Pollard v. Hagan
Pollard v. Hagan is an 1845 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed state ownership of submerged lands beneath navigable waters upon admission to the Union, reinforcing principles of state sovereignty and equal footing.
-
C.
Romer v. Evans
Romer v. Evans is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment targeting gay, lesbian, and bisexual people as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Henry v. Hodges
Henry v. Hodges is a federal court case challenging state bans on same-sex marriage, decided alongside other landmark marriage equality cases prior to Obergefell v. Hodges.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hanna v. Plumer Target entity description: 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.
-
A.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
-
B.
Pollard v. Hagan
Pollard v. Hagan is an 1845 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed state ownership of submerged lands beneath navigable waters upon admission to the Union, reinforcing principles of state sovereignty and equal footing.
-
C.
Romer v. Evans
Romer v. Evans is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment targeting gay, lesbian, and bisexual people as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Henry v. Hodges
Henry v. Hodges is a federal court case challenging state bans on same-sex marriage, decided alongside other landmark marriage equality cases prior to Obergefell v. Hodges.
- F. None of above. chosen
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 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Hanna v. Plumer Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)
this entity surface form:
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)