Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued November 4, 1986 Decided February 24, 1987 | |
Full case name | Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods, et al. |
Citations | 480 U.S. 1 (more) 107 S. Ct. 967; 94 L. Ed. 2d 1; 55 U.S.L.W. 4173; 6 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1035 |
Holding | |
The Alabama mandatory affirmance penalty statute has no application to judgments entered by federal courts sitting in diversity. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Marshall, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1912 |
Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case that applied the precedent of Hanna v. Plumer to a conflict between state and federal procedural rules for a federal court sitting in diversity.[1]
Opinion of the Court
The defendant in the original case stayed a damage judgment and went on to lose on appeal. According to an Alabama statute, the defendant would be required to pay a ten percent penalty. Under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 38, the penalty was discretionary. Holding the federal rule to be on point and constitutional, the court applied federal rule and gave no penalty.[2]
References
External links
- Text of Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Categories:
- Use mdy dates from September 2023
- Articles with short description
- Short description matches Wikidata
- United States Supreme Court cases
- Diversity jurisdiction case law
- 1987 in United States case law
- Burlington Northern Railroad
- United States conflict of laws case law
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
- All stub articles
- United States Supreme Court stubs