Download
1 / 3
30 likes | 157 Views
Burlington Northern has secured a $300,000 verdict in a diversity negligence case concerning regulations in Alabama. The defendant's appeal was unsuccessful under Alabama's rule system, where a losing appellant is liable for 10% of damages. Moreover, be mindful that frivolous appeals may incur double costs and damages as per federal regulations. The case raises critical questions about conflict analysis and the precedence of federal rules over state rules. This decision reinforces the importance of understanding the implications of both federal and state laws in litigation.
E N D
Burlington Northern • P wins $300K verdict in diversity negligence case (Alabama) • D appeals & loses • Alabama Rule • Losing appealing D pays 10% & • Frivolous appeals may be hit with 2x costs & damages • Fed Rule • Frivolous appeals may be hit with 2x costs & damages
Burlington Northern • What was outcome? • Fed rule displaces state rule. • Do you think there was a conflict? • What’s new about conflict analysis? • Conflict implicit (at most). • Why do you think it was found? • What’s new about FRCivP analysis? • Even stronger deference. • Presumptive validity of FRCivP
Walker • This case is a re-run of Ragan • Does state tolling trump Rule 3? • Is there a conflict • Court says no • Compare w/ Burlington Northern • Since no conflict, what does ct do? • Why? • Is there a little Byrd singing in the court’s ear?
