 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Hanna v. Plumer, No. 171,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 26, 1965, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner injured party brought a personal injury suit against respondent executor. Service of process was made in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court, which granted summary judgment for respondent and the Court reversed on appeal. Petitioner argued that in a civil action where jurisdiction was based upon diversity, service of process could be made according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) and did not have to be made in the manner prescribed by state law. The Court held that in a suit where a plaintiff happened to be a non-resident, and a right was enforceable in a federal as well as in a state court, the forms and mode of enforcing the right may at times, vary because the two judicial systems were not identical. The Court held that the adoption of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), designed to control service of process in diversity actions, neither exceeded the congressional mandate embodied in the Rules Enabling Act nor transgressed constitutional bounds, and that Rule 4(d)(1) was therefore the standard against which the district court should have measured the adequacy of the service.
|
|||||
| Griswold v. Connecticut, No. 496,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 7, 1965, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants appealed from their convictions under Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 53-32 (rev. 1958) as accessories. They contended that the application of the accessory statute, which was Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 54-196 (rev. 1958), violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellate court affirmed their convictions, as did the state supreme court. On further appeal, the Court first held that as accessories, defendants had standing to challenge the substantive law and to raise the constitutional rights of the married people with whom they had a professional relationship. In examining the United States Constitution, the Court found a right of privacy implicit in the Third Amendment's prohibition against the quartering of soldiers, the Fourth Amendment's right of people to be secure in their persons, the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination, and the Ninth Amendment's right to retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The right of privacy to use birth control measures was found to be a legitimate one. Thus, the Court concluded that Conn. Gen. Stat. ¿ 53-32 (rev. 1958) was unconstitutional.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
