Burlington Northern Railroad v. Woods

Supreme Court of the United States
480 U.S. 1, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 554, 94 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure directly conflicts with a state law, the federal rule governs in a federal diversity action, provided the federal rule is a valid exercise of Congress's rulemaking authority under the Constitution and the Rules Enabling Act.

Facts:

Alan Woods and Cara Woods were involved in a motorcycle accident.
They sustained injuries as a result of the accident.
They sought monetary damages from Burlington Northern Railroad Co., which they held responsible for their injuries.
The dispute over liability and damages for the injuries could not be resolved between the parties, leading to litigation.

Procedural Posture:

Alan and Cara Woods filed a tort action against Burlington Northern Railroad Co. in an Alabama state court.
Burlington Northern removed the case to a U.S. District Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
A jury trial resulted in a money judgment in favor of the Woods.
Burlington Northern posted a bond to stay the judgment and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment without modification.
The Woods then moved in the Eleventh Circuit to impose a mandatory 10% penalty as required by an Alabama statute.
The Court of Appeals granted the motion and assessed the penalty against Burlington Northern.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of the state statute.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Must a federal court sitting in diversity apply a state statute that imposes a mandatory 10% penalty on an unsuccessful appeal of a money judgment when Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides for discretionary sanctions for frivolous appeals?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Marshall

No. In a diversity action, a federal court must apply the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure rather than the conflicting state statute. The Court applied the test from Hanna v. Plumer to resolve the conflict. First, the court determined that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, which grants federal appellate courts discretion to award damages for frivolous appeals, is 'sufficiently broad' to cause a 'direct collision' with the Alabama statute, which mandates a 10% penalty for any unsuccessful appeal of a money judgment that has been stayed by a bond. The discretionary nature of the federal rule and the mandatory nature of the state law are in unmistakable conflict. Second, the court found Rule 38 to be a valid exercise of rulemaking authority because it is rationally capable of classification as procedural and does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right, as it only affects the process of enforcing litigants' rights.

Analysis:

This case clarifies that the Erie analysis established in Hanna v. Plumer applies not just to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The decision strengthens the primacy of the federal rules in governing procedure in federal courts, even in diversity cases where state substantive law applies. It establishes that when a valid Federal Rule is on point and directly conflicts with a state law, the federal rule controls, thereby promoting uniformity of procedure across the federal court system. This holding reinforces the idea that federal procedural integrity can outweigh state policies, even those with substantive objectives like compensating prevailing parties for appellate delays.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Burlington Northern Railroad v. Woods (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"