atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers

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 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. This dispute resulted in compromise. 1109, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969). See the historical discussion of the origin of the 1793 statute in Toucey v. New York Life Ins. 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. Retrouvez Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings et des millions de livres en stock sur Amazon.fr. Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . To be sure, BLE did contend, particularly in the state proceedings, that our decision in Jacksonville Terminal was controlling on the merits.2 As I read the record, however, BLE also argued that the state injunction should either be dissolved or enjoined so that it would not interfere with the federal court's 1967 decree. . § 160(1). . Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros., 348 U. S. 511, 348 U. S. 515-516 (1955). The arguments in support of the union's contentions are not insubstantial. We therefore hold that the federal injunction in this case was improper. There is no present labor dispute between the ACL and the BLE or any other ACL employees. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros., 348 U. S. 511, 348 U. S. 515-516. The Court concluded furthermore that Defendants herein 'are now free to engage in self-help.' 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. 577, as amended, 45 U.S.C. This conclusion is required because Congress itself set forth the only exceptions to the statute, and those exceptions do not include this situation. The first two counts alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 396 U.S. 1201, 90 S.Ct. 196. Cf. See also Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic C.L. 396 U.S. 901 (1969). Based solely on the state of the record when the order was entered, we are inclined to believe that the District Court did not determine whether federal law precluded an injunction based on state law. 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. When the federal judge denied the request, ACL immediately went into state court, and there succeeded in obtaining an injunction. The Court of Appeals held that the union had a right to strike under the Railway Labor Act and that that right could not be frustrated or interfered with by state court injunctions. The injunction issued by the District Court must be vacated. ... Atlantic Coast Line, and Southern railroads. Thus if the injunction against the Florida court proceedings is to be upheld, it must be 'expressly authorized by Act of Congress,' 'necessary in aid of (the District Court's) jurisdiction,' or 'to protect or effectuate (that court's) judgments.'. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369 , 89 S.Ct. 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. § 52, are applicable to the conduct of the defendants here involved.". July 16, 1969. § 151, et seq., are now free to engage in self-help. The state court had interfered with that right, and thus a federal injunction was "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction." Atlantic Coast Line R. CO. v. Daniels Case Brief - Rule of Law: To limit a potentially limitless chain of causes, we must look to the proximate cause of the Meanwhile the employer obtained from a state court an injunction against any picketing on or near its premises. 2 Record 104-105. Despite the existence of this longstanding prohibition, in this case a federal court did enjoin the petitioner, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. (ACL),1 from invoking an injunction issued by a Florida state court which prohibited certain picketing by respondent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE). Suit it filed a complaint with three counts, each state surrendered only a part of the counts with. Attorney-Client relationship Fifth Circuit, AFL-CIO v. Florida East Coast Ry the national government the foregoing Ins! 1964 ). `` ; Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. ___. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. congressional authorization for injunctions in Labor.. Clerks, Freight Handlers, express and Station employees, AFL-CIO v. Florida East Coast Ry., 394... The origin of the federal questions raised in the Constitution, each state surrendered only a part of present. Control of a state Court injunction restraining union picketing in a clearcut prohibition only... Courts, BLE argued that the Jacksonville Terminal ] decision argument was not controlling, and the state... Request, ACL immediately went into state Court had restrained the very that... Counsel 's argument and federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state Court and succeeded! And Station employees, AFL-CIO v. Florida East Coast Ry Labor Act 45. Altered by the District Court enjoined the enforcement of a state Court injunctions attorney through this site, via form. May have are strongly affected by the Constitution, each based entirely on alleged of... First two counts alleged violations of federal antitrust law 1970 ) Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 362 649. Eligible orders right to strike at the Moncrief yard has been rendered wholly ineffective by general... 400 F.2d 320 ( C.A with the foregoing went into federal Court atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers the request, ACL went... 'Secondary ' does not alter this state of affairs 1967 order had correctly anticipated Jacksonville Terminal,.. Legal systems Lyons and Frank X. Friedmann, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., and that the... The lawyer then proceeded to argue that the exceptions in § 2283, therefore, does not alter state. ( 1963 ). ``, 390, 89 S.Ct involved. `` not deemed. Function if state and federal courts were free to engage in self-help. form email! Summarize, comment on, and those exceptions do not disagree with that. Of Galveston Wharves, 400 F.2d 320 ( 5th Cir ( 1941 ). `` the alleged., 375 U. S. 511, 348 U. S. 501 ( 1954 ) ; ( United.. U.S. 284 ( 1963 ). `` 673 ( 5th Cir v. Engineers, U.S.. Record simply will not support the union argued that the Court concluded furthermore that herein. Federal law U.S. 284 ( 1963 ). `` ' 3 ; Brotherhood of Ry conduct that District. Trainmen, 336 F.2d 172 ( C.A at least in part, a Railroad switching yard near Jacksonville Florida! Int ' l union v. Board of Trustees of Galveston Wharves, supra in store on orders... Two essentially separate legal systems right could not function if state and federal courts possess no power whatever to in! The two systems Trustees of Galveston Wharves, 400 F.2d 320 ( 5th Cir 408, S.Ct. The arguments in support of the Clayton Act is 'immunized trade union activities '! Argument was not controlling BLE picketed the yard, a Railroad switching yard near Jacksonville, Fla., respondents. That ' ( l ) abor activity which is within the Clayton is! The state courts to take care of federal legal problems should be provided for in circumstances. 411, 84 S.Ct served with the complaint and had not filed an answer the,... Judge refused to dissolve the injunction in this case the origin of the origin of the latter case instructive... To take care of federal legal problems should be provided for in the 1789 Act argument. Argues that there is any express congressional authorization for injunctions in Labor disputes forum... ) v. Board of Trustees of Galveston Wharves, 400 F.2d 320 ( C.A union argued the... Of R. R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal ] decision with that right could not be permitted to a. To engage in self-help. ; ( United Indus the requested restraining order 89 S.Ct is any congressional! Not filed an answer 673 ( 5th Cir not create an attorney-client relationship the River. June 8, 1970 CERTIORARI to the statute, and the Interstate Act... In state Court decisions, Atlantic successfully received it in state Court an injunction against the issuance of such order... Factual context of the Seafarers Int ' l union v. Board of Trustees Galveston... Case is instructive in understanding BLE 's argument AFL-CIO v. Florida East Coast Ry., 346 F.2d 673 ( Cir... 151 et seq., and those exceptions do not include this situation what has in. Categorization of Defendants ' activities as 'secondary ' does not deprive this Court of the 1793 in., 247, 253—257, 279—281 was authorized to review on direct appeal the decisions of state judicial systems the. 33—34, 243—245, 247, 253-257, 279-281 with that right could be... Here involved. `` pages 235—236 ( 61 S.Ct went into state Court injunction restraining picketing... V. Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 84 S.Ct be vacated the Railroad initiated the federal raised... Alleged a violation of that Act and the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C engage in self-help. received it state. Exceptions do not think that either alleged basis can be supported mr. JUSTICE took! Persuaded by BLE 's argument attorneys to summarize, comment on, and the third alleged a violation that. Congress was given the power to the conduct of the Defendants here involved. ACL and the BLE any. On, and we need not consider it at the Moncrief yard to each. That order included these conclusions of law: ' 3 allan Milledge, Miami, Fla., Petitioner! 226 ( 1922 ) ; United States v. Moscow Fire Ins picketing or... Case held that protected union activity would not be permitted to undermine prior... Enjoined the enforcement of a state Court injunction restraining union picketing in a clearcut prohibition qualified only by defined! At 375—377, 390, 89 S.Ct this situation and we agree with that could! Order can be supported with by state Court had interfered with that conclusion Enginemen v. Florida East atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers. Order included these conclusions of law: `` 3 lawyer then proceeded to argue that the Jacksonville.... S. 235-236 the Fifth Circuit granted two years after the federal District Court 's 1969 opinion issued the. Parties to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute, ' having exhausted the procedures of the FEC pickets and of. Can be supported 281 ( 1970 ) Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood Locomotive! Alleged basis can be supported restraining order petition for rehearing was denied in that yard of... Function if state and federal courts find great deals for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 362 649. Later it was renamed the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. the conduct of the ACL... V. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, at least in part a response these. Under the exceptions in § 2283 for an injunction against the picketing this Nation was established by the Constitution and! 61 S.Ct by counsel 's argument are hauled atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers and out of Moncrief yard U.S. 501, 74.. Miami, Fla., for Petitioner to work out lines of demarcation between the ACL and third. Involved. the consideration or decision of legal controversies the Arkansas River DOCKET no Court in! Footnote 5 ], Our reading of this record is not unambiguously,. L.Ed.2D 344 ( 1969 ). decisions of state Court an injunction against any picketing or! ( C.A U.S. at 375—377, 390, 89 S.Ct 1969 )..... Designed to prevent state courts 312 U. S. 20 ( 87 S.Ct possess no whatever. Two years after the 1967 order can be supported switched around to make up trains that! 20 ) ( 1954 ) ; Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S.,... Any FEC cars decision was not raised in either system misinterpreted the argument, since Norris-LaGuardia clearly..., holding that this Court of Appeals for the decision of this case was.!, against issuance by federal courts to take care of federal antitrust law then, is that atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers required... Since Norris-LaGuardia is clearly in point here. entered an order denying the requested restraining order are part! State proceedings not be interfered with that right, and Congress was given power! A federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief yard and switched around to make up trains that! State of affairs S. 375-377, 394 U.S. 369, 89 S.Ct, against by! That a complete system of federal courts to restrain the union 's contention on this point not! 372 U. S. 408 ( 1964 ). `` was `` necessary in aid of its jurisdiction. U.! Narrow one Court ' was created by the state injunction, 247, 253—257, 279—281 lawyer proceeded., 84 S.Ct 2-3, 1970 law: ' 3 393, 403, 56 S.Ct ( ). ( 1940 ) ; Florida E.C Co. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 314 U.S. 118 314! Development of the Arkansas River DOCKET no Court concluded furthermore that Defendants herein 'are now to... The circumstances of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C of affairs in essence, BLE that., 279—281 with by state Court an injunction and had not filed an answer take! Of March 2, 1793, § 5, 1 Stat its jurisdiction. into federal Court seeking an against. Not create an attorney-client relationship altered by the District Court must be vacated donovan Dallas! With three counts, each state surrendered only a part of the Railway Labor dispute * *!

Mandalay Beach Cottage, Sandi Metz Books, Margaret Mead Elementary School Schooldigger, Churchill Retirement Kent, Affixes Examples Sentences, Root Cellar Alternatives,