of a FELA claim in federal court that rule 68.03 is inconsistent with the federal interest in uniformly applying FELA. In Johnson, the Supreme Court explained that the difference in “outcome” requiring preemption of a state rule referred to a difference in “the ultimate disposition of the case” between federal and state courts. 520 U.S. at 921, 117 S.Ct. at 1806 (emphasis added). Consistent with this principle, the Supreme Court has held state rules to be preempted when such rules significantly affected state-court adjudication of the underlying rights of the federal statute, typically by defeating a plaintiffs cause of action when such defeat would not have occurred in federal court. See, e.g., Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729, 740-42, 129 S.Ct. 2108, 2117-18, 173 L.Ed.2d 920 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Felder, 487 U.S. at 152-53, 108 S.Ct. at 2314
holding state statute that prevented  1983 suits seeking damages relief against correctional officers to be preempted holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities holding that suits against state officers rather than against state itself are permitted when seeking prospective but not compensatory or other retrospective relief holding that a state university is not a person within the meaning of  1983 and therefore is not subject to suits brought under  1983 holding that title ii ada suits and rehabilitation act suits for prospective injunctive relief may be brought under ex parte young against state officers in their official capacities