Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods
Supreme Court of the United States
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
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
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]

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]

• 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.

• v
• t
• e