Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods

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]

Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods
Argued November 4, 1986
Decided February 24, 1987
Full case nameBurlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods, et al.
Citations480 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
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1912

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

  1. Yeazell, S.C. Civil Procedure, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2008, p. 247
  2. Yeazell, p. 247
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.