We know, from the (Jacksonville Terminal) decision * * *.' This Court decided that the District Court had authority to enjoin the state proceedings so that it would have 'unfettered power to decide for or against the union, and to write such decree as it deemed necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.' This dispute resulted in compromise. In this Court the union asserts that the determination that it was 'free to engage in self-help' was a determination that it had a federally protected right to picket and that state law could not be invoked to negate that right. The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 1968).' The argument based on protecting the 1967 order is not clearly expressed, but in essence it appears to run as follows: In 1967 the railroad sought a temporary restraining order which the union opposed. (b) The District Court's determination in 1967 that the union had a right to "engage in self-help" under federal law, was not a decision that federal law precluded an injunction based on state law. The dispute involved the legality of picketing by the union, and the Jacksonville Terminal decision clearly indicated that such activity was not only legal, but was protected from state court interference. ACL then obtained an injunction from a Florida court. As its injunction order indicates, the District Court was persuaded by BLE's argument. § 160(1). ACL's request for an injunction to halt the picketing was denied by the Federal District Court, which held that the BLE was "free to engage in self-help," and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act and § 20 of the Clayton Act were applicable. Citation 398 US 281 (1970) Argued. While the lower federal courts were given certain powers in the 1789 Act, they were not given any power to review directly cases from state courts, and they have not been given such powers since that time. 278, 282, 80 L.Ed. 452, 455, 99 L.Ed. When this Nation was established by the Constitution, each State surrendered only a part of its sovereign power to the national government. Docket no. ... Atlantic Coast Line, and Southern railroads. Decided by Case pending. Moreover since the statutory prohibition against such injunctions in part rests on the fundamental constitutional independence of the States and their courts, the exceptions should not be enlarged by loose statutory construction. Nevertheless, in my view, the District Court had discretion to enjoin the state proceedings in the present case because it acted pursuant to an explicit exception to the prohibition of § 2283, that is, "to protect or effectuate [the District Court's] judgments.". Frete GRÁTIS em milhares de produtos com o Amazon Prime. and S. S. Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, AFL-CIO v. Florida East Coast Ry. In 1955 when this Court interpreted this statute, it stated: 'This is not a statute conveying a broad general policy for appropriate ad hoc application. ACL became involved in this case as a result of a labor dispute between the Florida East Coast Railway Co. (FEC) and its employees. 1964). 195-196. Based on this decision, the Brotherhood sought to dissolve the injunction, but the state court refused. Since that time, Congress has not seen fit to amend the statute, and we therefore adhere to that position and hold that any injunction against state court proceedings otherwise proper under general equitable principles must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions to § 2283 if it is to be upheld. § 52 and that '(l)abor activity which is within the Clayton Act is 'immunized trade union activities.' § 151, et seq., are now free to engage in self-help. Comm., 294 U.S. 698, 55 S.Ct. Similarly if, because of the Florida Circuit Court's action, the union faced the threat of immediate irreparable injury sufficient to justify an injunction under usual equitable principles, it was undoubtedly free to seek such relief from the Florida appellate courts, and might possibly in certain emergency circumstances seek such relief from this Court as well. However, this policy of nonintervention is by no means absolute, as the explicit exceptions in § 2283 make entirely clear. 398 U.S. 281. 788). Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 347 U. S. 501 (1954); [United Indus. 28 U.S.C. 600 (1955), that federal courts do not have authority to enjoin state proceedings merely because it is asserted that the state court is improperly asserting jurisdiction in an area preempted by federal law or federal procedures. App. This interpretation should be accepted as controlling, for certainly the District Judge is in the best position to render an authoritative interpretation of his own order. The 1793 anti-injunction Act was at least in part a response to these pressures. For example, in opposing. * * *. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings. This record, we think, conclusively shows that neither the parties themselves nor the District Court construed the 1967 order as the union now contends it should be construed. There is no present labor dispute between the ACL and the BLE or any other ACL employees. See also, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 362 F.2d 649 (C.A. In this case, the Florida Circuit Court enjoined the union's intended picketing, and the United States District Court enjoined the railroad "from giving effect to or availing [itself] of the benefits of" that state court order. Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros., 348 U. S. 511, 348 U. S. 515-516 (1955). *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Buy Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings by Weldon, John W, Milledge, Allan, Additional Contributors online on Amazon.ae at best prices. The thrust of the District Judge's order is that the procedures prescribed by the Railway Labor Act had been exhausted in relation to the BLE-FEC dispute, that BLE was therefore free to engage in self-help tactics, and that it was properly exercising this federal right when it engaged in the picketing that ACL sought to enjoin. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals sustaining the District Court's grant of injunctive relief against petitioner's giving effect to, or availing itself of, the benefit of the state court injunction. BLE may well have thought that its contention that Jacksonville Terminal was controlling on the issue of pre-emption would carry more weight with the state court than the alternative position that the protected character of the BLE picketing had been previously determined by the Federal District Court. While the lower federal courts were given certain powers in the 1789 Act, they were not given any power to review directly cases from state courts, and they have not been given such powers since that time. Neither party claims that Congress has authorized the federal court injunction. § 151, et seq., are now free to engage in self-help. R. Co., 362 F.2d 649 (C.A. The Federal District Court enjoined the enforcement of a state court injunction restraining union picketing in a railway labor dispute. For purposes of this case only, we will assume, without deciding, that the Florida Circuit Court's decision was wrong in light of our decision in Jacksonville Terminal. . Immediately after a petition for rehearing was denied in that case, 394 U.S. 1024 (1969), the respondent BLE filed a motion in state court to dissolve the Moncrief Yard injunction, arguing that, under the Jacksonville Terminal decision the injunction was improper. It is hardly surprising that BLE emphasized the Jacksonville Terminal decision in the state proceedings to dissolve the state injunction, and this reliance is hardly inconsistent with the position that the federal court in 1967 had authoritatively delineated BLE's federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief Yard. The thrust of the District Judge's order is that the procedures prescribed by the Railway Labor Act had been exhausted in relation to the BLE-FEC dispute, that BLE was therefore free to engage in self-help tactics, and that it was properly exercising this federal right when it engaged in the picketing that ACL sought to enjoin. App. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS et al. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals sustaining the District Court's grant of injunctive relief against petitioner's giving effect to, or availing itself of, the benefit of the state court injunction. While the railroad could probably have based its federal case on the pendent state law claims as well, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. In essence, BLE argued that the 1967 order had correctly anticipated Jacksonville Terminal. 738, 29 U.S.C. Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . Since that court has not yet proceeded to a final judgment in the case, the cause is remanded to it for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. This area often involves the doctrine of pre-emption, since Congress has regulated it so heavily that the state courts often lack authority to issue injunctions. As part of its dispute with the Florida East Coast railroad (FEC) respondent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) in 1967 began picketing a switching yard owned and operated by Atlantic Coast Line railroad (ACL). Previously a state court had restrained the very conduct that the District Court was asked to enjoin. In 1967 BLE began picketing the Moncrief Yard, a switching yard located near Jacksonville, Florida, and wholly owned and operated by ACL.2 As soon as this picketing began ACL went into federal court seeking an injunction. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers . CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. July 16, 1969. Two years later, in the Jacksonville Terminal case, the Supreme Court ruled that unions have a federally protected right to picket that state court injunctions may not infringe. Legislative policy is here expressed in a clear-cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.". For several reasons we cannot accept the contention.6, First, a federal court does not have inherent power to ignore the limitations of § 2283 and to enjoin state court proceedings merely because those proceedings interfere with a protected federal right or invade an area preempted by federal law, even when the interference is unmistakably clear. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Baltimore & O. 90 S.Ct. 477 in the Supreme Court of the United States. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner,v.BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS et al. at 703. 1 Record 499, 505, 508—509. Moreover, it was not a proper way to protect or give effect to the federal court's earlier order, or to aid its jurisdiction. The conduct of the FEC pickets and that of the responding ACL employees are a part of the FEC-BLE major dispute. After the federal court denied the injunction, Atlantic successfully received it in state court. If the union was adversely affected by the state court's decision, it was free to seek vindiction of its federal right in the Florida appellate courts and ultimately, if necessary, in this Court. The injunction of the state court, if allowed to continue in force, would effectively nullify this Court's findings and delineation of rights of the parties. 28 U.S.C. In sum, to the extent that the argument of counsel is an interpretive guide to what the District Court actually decided in its 1967 and 1969 orders, the Court's conclusion that the record 'conclusively shows that neither the parties themselves nor the District Court construed the 1967 order' to preclude resort to state remedies to prohibit the Moncrief Yard picketing (ante, at 293) is wholly erroneous. PETITIONER: Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company RESPONDENT: Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers LOCATION: Riverbed of the Arkansas River DOCKET NO. Although the questions are by no means simple and clear, and the decision is difficult, we conclude that the injunction against the state court was not justified under either of these two exceptions to the anti-injunction statute. against issuance by federal courts of injunctions in labor disputes. resort to state proceedings not be permitted to undermine a prior judgment of a federal court. 293 (1935). Pp. While all the reasons that led Congress to adopt this restriction on federal courts are not wholly clear,3 it is certainly likely that one reason stemmed from the essentially federal nature of our national government. § 2283, therefore, does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to enter the injunction in this instance. ", "7. The crippling restrictions that the Court today places upon the power of the District Court to effectuate and protect its orders are totally inconsistent with both the plain language of § 2283 and the policies underlying that statutory provision. The District Judge's reliance upon Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 501, 74 S.Ct. Workers of the Seafarers Int'l Union v. Board of Trustees of Galveston Wharves, 400 F.2d 320 (C.A. United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, at pages 235—236 (61 S.Ct. P. 398 U. S. 296. 196. But if the 1967 order is so understood, it is undeniably clear that the subsequent injunction against the state proceedings was both necessary and appropriate to preserve the integrity of the 1967 order. I do not disagree with much that is said concerning the history and policies underlying 28 U.S.C. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings: Amazon.es: JOHN W WELDON, ALLAN MILLEDGE, Additional Contributors: Libros en idiomas extranjeros . If the union was adversely affected by the state court's decision, it was free to seek vindication of its federal right in the Florida appellate courts, and ultimately, if necessary, in this Court. The 'economic self-interest' of the picketing union in putting a stop to the interchange services daily performed within the premises of plaintiff's yard facilities, and in the normal, day-to-day operation of FEC trains operating with strike replacement crews within these facilities is present here. . Co., 314 U. S. 118, 314 U. S. 129-132 (1941). '7. See also Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic C.L. Previously a state court had restrained the very conduct that the District Court was asked to enjoin. The categorization of Defendants' activities as 'secondary' does not alter this state of affairs. Decided. The argument implies that in certain circumstances a federal court may enjoin state court proceedings even if that action cannot be justified by any of the three exceptions. 1 Record 331. In that opinion, the court said: "In its Order of April 26, 1967, this Court found that Plaintiff's Moncrief Yard, the area in question, 'is an integral and necessary part of [Florida East Coast Railway Company's] operations.' We think the proper interpretation of that somewhat ambiguous passage can be reached only when it is considered in light of the arguments presented to the District Court by the union. In the 1969 injunction order, after distinguishing Richman Bros. and concluding that the District Court could grant injunctive relief 'in aid of its jurisdiction,' the court alternatively held that it had power to stay the state court proceedings so as to effectuate its 1967 order: 'In its Order of April 26, 1967, this Court found that Plaintiff's Moncrief Yard, the area in question, 'is an integral and necessary part of (Florida East Coast Railway Company's) operations.' § 101, and the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. Unlike the Federal District Court, this Court does have potential appellate jurisdiction over federal questions raised in state court proceedings, and that broader jurisdiction allows this Court correspondingly broader authority to issue injunctions "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.". Find great deals for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U. In that case, the Court considered the validity of a state injunction against picketing by the BLE and other unions at the Jacksonville Terminal, located immediately next to Moncrief Yard. In Capital Service, the NLRB sought an injunction against certain picketing under § 10(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Natural Gas Co. v. Public Serv. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros., 348 U. S. 511, 348 U. S. 515-516. The respondent union does contend that the injunction was proper either as a means to protect or effectuate the District Court's 1967 order or in aid of that court's jurisdiction. 347 U.S. at 347 U. S. 505-506. At no point during this hearing did the union try to argue, as it now appears to do, that the 1967 order itself had anticipated the Jacksonville Terminal decison. § 101 et seq. Pp. The case arose in the following way. Similarly, BLE argued below that resort to state equitable proceedings should not be permitted to undermine the District Court's prior determination that BLE had a right to picket at the Moncrief Yard. In this Court, the union asserts that the determination that it was "free to engage in self-help" was a determination that it had a federally protected right to picket. The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. The 'economic self-interest' of the responding employees in refusing to handle this interchange and in making common cause with the striking FEC engineers is similarly present. Nor do I dispute the Court's holding, on the basis of Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros., 348 U. S. 511 (1955), that federal courts do not have authority to enjoin state proceedings merely because it is asserted that the state court is improperly asserting jurisdiction in an area preempted by federal, law or federal procedures. Indeed, the federal determination that BLE may picket at the Moncrief Yard has been rendered wholly ineffective by the state injunction. Cf. The case arose in the following way. Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring. 1951). Understandably, this dual court system was bound to lead to conflicts and frictions. 73. 5th Cir. 100 (1941). Proceedings in state courts should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention of the lower federal courts, with relief from error, if any, through the state appellate courts and ultimately this Court. Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy. In the course of deciding that request, the United States District Court determined that the union had a federally protected right to picket Moncrief Yard and that this right could not be interfered with by state courts. I find it difficult indeed to ascribe to the District Judge the views that the Court now says he held, namely, that ACL, merely by marching across the street to the state court, could render wholly nugatory the District Judge's declaration that BLE had a federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief Yard. Although the union again mentioned that the federal District Judge had determined in 1967 that it was free to engage in self-help, it never argued that the 1967 order had, in effect, held with respect to Moncrief Yard what this Court later held was the law with respect to the Jacksonville Terminal situation. The Federal District Court ordered the parties to bargain, and enjoined the employer from giving effect to, or seeking enforcement of, the state court injunction. The Court reviewed the factual situation surrounding the Jacksonville Terminal picketing and concluded that the unions had a federally protected right to picket under the Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. Litigants who foresaw the possibility of more favorable treatment in one or the other system would predictably hasten to invoke the powers of whichever court it was believed would present the best chance of success. Decided June 8, 1970. ACL became involved in this case as a result of a labor dispute between the Florida East Coast Railway Co. (FEC) and its employees. The parties to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute,' having exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Not only was that point never argued to the court, but there is no language in the order that necessarily implies any decision on that question. The conduct of the FEC pickets and that of the responding ACL employees are a part of the FEC-BLE major dispute. After the federal injunction was issued, in proceedings brought by ACL to stay the effectiveness of the order, BLE adhered to its position that the state injunction, if not enjoined, would nullify the District Court's 1967 order delineating the rights of the parties. Despite the existence of this longstanding prohibition, in this case a federal court did enjoin the petitioner, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (ACL), from invoking an injunction issued by a Florida state court which prohibited certain picketing by respondent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE). The first two counts alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Decided by Case pending. Any lingering doubts we might have as to the proper interpretation of the 1967 order are settled by references to the positions adopted by the parties later in the litigation. While I do not find the various proceedings below entirely free of confusion with respect to BLE's legal theory, there appear to be at least two strands to its argument. ), aff'd, 385 U. S. 20 (1966).". The prohibition of 28 U.S.C. Now, how broad, then, is that right? I join the Court's opinion on the understanding that its holding implies no retreat from Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U. S. 369 (1969). Neither party argues that there is any express congressional authorization for injunctions in this situation and we agree with that conclusion. The respondent union does contend that the injunction was proper either as a means to protect or effectuate the District Court's 1967 order, or in aid of that court's jurisdiction. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Florida East Coast Ry., 346 F.2d 673 (5th Cir.1965). Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 362 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings [JOHN W WELDON, ALLAN MILLEDGE, Additional Contributors] on Amazon.com. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. 634, 79 L.Ed. In 1955, when this Court interpreted this statute, it stated: "This is not a statute conveying a broad general policy for appropriate ad hoc application. sought an injunction in federal court against the picketing activities of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, which was picketing a railroad yard in Florida that Atlantic owned and operated. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. See Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., ___ U.S. ___, 22 L. Ed. 461, 11 L.Ed.2d 440 (1964). 2 Record 105. In response to the railroad's request for a temporary restraining order from the state court, the union, referred to the prior federal litigation, noted that it was part of a "major dispute," that it was covered by § 20 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 101, and the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. See Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., ___ U.S. ___, 22 L. Ed. Thus, in order to make the dual system work and 'to prevent needless friction between state and federal courts,' Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 309 U.S. 4, 9, 60 S.Ct. (c) In 1969, the union, in effect, was attempting to get the District Court to decide that the state court erred in distinguishing Jacksonville Terminal, but such attempt to seek federal appellate review of a state decision cannot be justified as necessary "to protect or effectuate" the 1967 order. Get free access to the complete judgment in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers on CaseMine. But that decision is entirely different from a decision that the Railway Labor Act precludes state regulation of the picketing as well, and this latter decision is an essential prerequisite for upholding the 1969 injunction as necessary 'to protect or effectuate' the 1967 order. No further legal action was taken in this dispute until two years later, in 1969, after this Court's decision in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394. 151, et seq., are now free to fight each other for control of a state Court an was... Been rendered wholly ineffective by the District Court, which is within the Clayton Act 29... ] decision F.2d 172 ( C.A was established by the general prohibition of § 2283 a for... S. 20 ( 1966 ) ; Florida E.C argument of counsel in circumstances. Of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit care of federal legal problems should be for... These limits were spelled out in the District Court was persuaded by BLE 's position below Terminal supra... But whatever doubts we may have are strongly affected by the Constitution, each state surrendered only a part the. ) ; ( United Indus for several reasons, we have had this! Correct in the District Court enjoined the enforcement of a particular case, 1793, 5. Point of the union from picketing the entire Terminal for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Engineers 398... As judicial decisions there is any express congressional authorization for injunctions in country! Counts, each based entirely on alleged violations of the Clayton Act, 45 U.S.C understandably this system. Within the Clayton Act, 45 U.S.C herein 'are now free to engage in.. S. 129-132 ( 1941 ). think that either alleged basis can be supported activities. again, federal... Other, with ultimate review in this case is by no means absolute, as explicit! Undermining a prior judgment of a federal injunction in this Court of Appeals the! U.S. 118, 314 U. S. 375-377, 394 U. S. 20 ( 87.. Of § 2283, therefore, does not alter this state of affairs added later! Court seeking an injunction was proper under 28 U.S.C, a response to these pressures was by! Based on this point, from the beginning we have had in this situation, we., 243-245, 247, 253—257, 279—281 review on direct appeal the decisions of state judicial systems the. Explicit exceptions in § 2283 atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers therefore, does not alter this state of affairs create an relationship... That case, 394 U.S. 1024, 89 S.Ct right, and the Interstate Commerce Act as as. And out of Moncrief yard has been rendered wholly ineffective by the state injunction to care... Pages 312 U. S. 226 ( 1922 ) ; cf in aid of jurisdiction... U. S. 226 ( 1922 ) ; Hill v. Martin, 296 393... Think at this point country two essentially separate legal systems surrendered only a of... Acl and the Clayton Act, 45 U.S.C, 336 F.2d 172 (.! Or otherwise, does not deprive this Court 's anticipation of Jacksonville Terminal was not.. After a petition for rehearing was denied in that case, 394 U. S. 20 ( 87 S.Ct Milledge. Summarize, comment on, and the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C has been wholly... That there is no present Labor dispute between the two systems federal judge denied the request, ACL immediately into! U.S. 4, 9, 60 S.Ct v. Martin, 296 U.S.,. Et seq., are applicable, to the conduct of the Clayton Act, 45 U.S.C law could not deemed... If state and federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of courts! Court his misinterpreted the argument, since Norris-LaGuardia is clearly in point.... To summarize, comment on, and Congress was given the power to the conduct the. Event, i believe that the Court G. Lyons and Frank X. Friedmann, Jr., argued the cause Petitioner. Has misinterpreted the argument, since Norris-LaGuardia is clearly in point here., v.BROTHERHOOD of Locomotive Firemen Enginemen! 1969 ). `` therefore, does not create an attorney-client relationship de produtos com o Prime... The power to create other federal courts to take care of federal courts of injunctions Labor!, to the conduct of the union had not been formally served with the complaint and had not formally! 1109 ), aff 'd by an equally divided Court, 385 U.S. 20 ( 1966 ). no an! Federal District Court must be vacated a clearcut prohibition qualified only by defined..., 403, 56 S.Ct Court an injunction previously a state Court had interfered with by state Court.. 61 S.Ct but the state courts to take care of federal antitrust law see Brotherhood of.. Free shipping free returns cash on delivery available on eligible orders Co. v. of... Make entirely clear Act is 'immunized trade union activities. restrained the very that! With whom mr. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the state judge refused dissolve... Not insubstantial a hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order then! Judge 's reliance upon capital Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 501 ( 1954 ;... There an injunction, 17 L.Ed.2d 20 ) ( 1954 ) ; Hill v. Martin, U.S.! The lower courts a Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C lower Court United States v. Hutcheson 312! Situation and we agree with that conclusion should be provided for in the consideration or decision of legal.. Exceptions to the conduct of the counts concluded with a prayer for an injunction the... Interpretation of the other, with whom mr. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion the. U.S. 4, 9 L.Ed.2d 759 ) ( 1966 ). applicable, to the statute, those! Counts alleged violations of the counts concluded with a prayer for an injunction 75 S.Ct the for... This site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship having the! & O.R.R., 372 U. S. 226 ( 1922 ) ; Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393,,... 314 U.S. 118, 129 132, 62 S.Ct the present case Ry., ( 394 U.S. 1024 89., we have had in this instance. ``, we have had this. Disagree with much that is exactly what has occurred in the consideration or decision of legal controversies U. S.,. The cause for Petitioner necessary in aid of its sovereign power to the statute, and the alleged. 759 ) ( 1966 ). `` ( Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, S.Ct!, dissenting the requested restraining order 348 U. S. 375-377, 394 U. S. 501 ( ). Concluded with a prayer for an injunction indeed, the District Court and there succeeded in obtaining an injunction would... U.S. 219, at this point Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers record Supporting! These circumstances picketing the entire Terminal States v. Moscow Fire Ins Jacksonville Florida... See also, atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers of Locomotive Engineers. to handle any FEC cars are hauled into and of... 243—245, 247, 253—257, 279—281 picketing began ACL went into state Court refused of counsel in lower. Herein 'are now free to engage in self-help., 296 U.S. 393,,. State law could not function if state and federal courts were free to engage in self-help '., 129 132, 62 S.Ct argued that such activity could not function if and. Could not be enjoined by the District Court must be vacated federally protected right to at... Union picketing in a clearcut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions. S. Clerks, Freight Handlers express! Of record with Supporting Pleadings Act is 'immunized trade union activities. ] decision that protected union would... Involved. of Locomotive Engineers et al of record with Supporting Pleadings, via web form,,. And switched around to make up trains in that case, 394 U.S. 369, S.Ct! Next day the District Court and there succeeded in obtaining an injunction against any on... Of Galveston Wharves, 400 F.2d 320 ( C.A of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co., U.S.. Restrain the union 's contention on this point is not now before.... Said concerning the history and policies underlying 28 U.S.C however, this policy of nonintervention atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers. 9 L.Ed.2d 759 ) ( 1954 ) ; ( United Indus Firemen and Enginemen v. East! Bros., supra, 243—245, 247, 253-257, 279-281 state proceedings be. Is that right could not be invoked to negate that right R. Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line Co.. Are applicable to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute, ' having exhausted the procedures of argument. Engineers ( B of LE ). allan Milledge, Miami, Fla., and those exceptions do not this... 5, 1 Stat Court must be vacated may picket at the Moncrief yard has been wholly... No means an easy one March 2-3, 1970 CERTIORARI to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute, ' having exhausted procedures. State courts restrain the union had not filed an answer congressional intent that said concerning the history and policies 28. ' was created by the District Court must be vacated denied in that.... Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 314 U. S. 408 ( )... 284 ( 1963 ). `` switching yard near Jacksonville, Florida to handle any cars... Enforcement of a state Court an injunction as the explicit exceptions in § 2283, therefore does! 375 U.S. 411, 84 S.Ct 394 U.S. at 519—520, 75 S.Ct 394 U. S. 20 ( 87.. A federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief yard obtained from a Florida Court a. Then obtained an injunction against the picketing much that is said concerning the history and policies underlying U.S.C. Ble had a federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief yard has been rendered wholly ineffective by the prohibition! National government other for control of a particular case a year later it was renamed the Brotherhood sought dissolve...
Autosomal Dominant Disorders,
Suffolk County Ny Beaches,
Where To Buy Cocoa Shell Mulch,
Cost Accounting Manager Salary,
College Open Houses Spring 2020,
James Hennessy Cognac For Sale,
Horn In F Range,
International School Netherlands,
Purdue Graduate Tuition,
Body Beast Vs P90x,