MBE Rules · Civil Procedure
Hanna Framework
Hanna v. Plumer
The rule
A valid, on-point Federal Rule controls over conflicting state law under the Rules Enabling Act; only when no Rule governs does the Erie outcome-determination analysis, guided by the twin aims, apply.
In plain English
The Hanna Framework establishes that if there is a federal rule that directly addresses an issue, that rule will take precedence over any conflicting state law due to the Rules Enabling Act. If there is no applicable federal rule, then courts must apply the Erie doctrine, which focuses on fairness and uniformity in the legal system.
Worked example
In a federal diversity case, the plaintiff files a motion to compel discovery under a federal rule that allows for broader discovery than the state law. Since there is a valid federal rule that governs the discovery process, the federal rule applies, and the court grants the motion. The outcome is that the plaintiff can access more information than they would have under state law.
Memory hook
Federal rules trump state laws when they’re on point!
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students mistakenly apply state law instead of recognizing a controlling federal rule. Students should be cautious to identify any applicable federal rules before considering state law.
How examiners test it
Questions often test students' ability to identify whether a federal rule exists and how it interacts with state law, frequently using fact patterns that highlight the differences between the two.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.