Let’s say, hypothetically, that you’ve been working on the railroad. All the livelong day. You’ve been working on the railroad, just to pass the time away. In Minnesota.
First, that’s just sad. “Working on the railroad to pass the time away?” That’s hard work. You might consider something less arduous and safer if passing the time is your modest goal (reading?).
Also, hypothetically, if you are injured and you sue your railroad employer and you win your lawsuit, do you think you should get the federal post-judgment interest rate applied to your money damages or the Minnesota post-judgment interest rate?
And do you care?
We bet you care. Again, hypothetically, we bet you’re working for the railroad not only to “pass the time away” but for money. Are we right? If so, you care.
According to lawyers for Plaintiff James Alby, the vast weight of authority supports the position that the state post-judgment interest rate is a matter of “procedural law” rather than “substantive law” and, as such, state law (here, Minnesota law) applies.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals sided with BNSF on the issue. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently granted the Plaintiff’s petition for review of the adverse court of appeals’ decision.