Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods
| 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[edit]
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[edit]
External links[edit]
- 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)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |