68.03(b)(2). See- Minn. R. Civ. P. 68.03(b)(2). The result here is that BNSF twice paid the costs Boyd incurred from the date of the settlement offer. There is no federal equivalent to Minnesota Rule 68.03(b)(2). With this framework in mind, we consider whether Rule 68.03(b)(2) is substantive or procedural. The United States Supreme Court has -. acknowledged that there.is no “precise rule” to distinguish between a substantive law and a procedural law in the FELA context. St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Dickerson, 470 U.S. 409, 411, 105 S.Ct. 1347, 84 L.Ed.2d.303 (1985). But it is apparent that the definition of “substantive” in FELA cases is expansive, encompassing state laws that by ordinary nomenclature would, be regarded- as “procedural.” See,. e.g., Brown, 338 U.S. at 296, 70 S.Ct. 1-05 (<HOLDING>); see also 20 Charles Alan Wright & Mary Kay
holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery holding that pleading rules are substantive holding that state substantive rules of decision apply in federal diversity cases holding that courts look to substance of plea for relief to determine nature of pleading not merely title of pleading holding that liberal pleading standards of rules 8 and 9 applied to prayer for punitive damages