Capital Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 347 U. S. 501 (1954); [United Indus. 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. 1968), a fact ignored by the Court, is particularly significant, for both of these cases sustained injunctive relief against state court proceedings that threatened to impair the ability of the federal courts to make their judgments effective. See Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Florida East Coast Ry. The Making of Modern Law: U.S. Supreme Court Records and Briefs, 1832-1978 contains the world's most comprehensive collection of … 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). Natural Gas Co. v. Public Serv. The lawyer then proceeded to argue that the Jacksonville Terminal case had clearly revealed that the right of self-help is beyond state court proscription in these circumstances. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Florida East Coast Ry., 346 F.2d 673 (5th Cir.1965). Frete GRÁTIS em milhares de produtos com o Amazon Prime. 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. 477. The respondents here have intimated that the Act only establishes a 'principles of comity,' not a binding rule on the power of the federal courts. Find great deals for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U. Rather than appealing the denial of that request, the Brotherhood sought and received an injunction in federal court against the enforcement of the state court injunction. But whatever doubts we may have are strongly affected by the general prohibition of § 2283. However, this policy of nonintervention is by no means absolute, as the explicit exceptions in § 2283 make entirely clear. Similarly the union's arguments in 1969 indicate that the 1967 federal order did not determine whether federal law precluded resort to the state courts. R. Co., 362 F.2d 649 (C.A. 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. 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. ... Atlantic Coast Line, and Southern railroads. The categorization of Defendants' activities as 'secondary' does not alter this state of affairs. ", "4. See ibid. 738, 29 U.S.C. . The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed on the parties' stipulation, and we granted a petition for certiorari to consider the validity of the federal court's injunction against the state court. Both exceptions to the general prohibition of § 2283 imply that some federal injunctive relief may be necessary to prevent a state court from so interfering with a federal court's consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the federal court's flexibility and authority to decide that case. 347 U.S. at 347 U. S. 505-506. ... "Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers." 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. 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. 196. In the state courts BLE adopted a position entirely consistent with the foregoing. In 1967, BLE began picketing the Moncrief Yard, a switching yard located near Jacksonville, Florida, and wholly owned and operated by ACL. Legislative policy is here expressed in a clearcut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.' U.S. Reports: Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers et al., 396 U.S. 1201 (1969). Appealing a state court decision in a federal district court is not an appropriate strategy, and the Brotherhood essentially was doing that when it asked the federal judge to determine that the state judge erred in distinguishing the Supreme Court case. 887) (1954); (United Indus. Brotherhood of R.R. And, quite apart from counsel's argument, it is apparent that the District Judge viewed his own 1967 order as delineating a federally protected right for the BLE picketing in question. After the federal court denied the injunction, Atlantic successfully received it in state court. See 1 Record 33—34, 243—245, 247, 253—257, 279—281. Kline v. Burke Constr. However, this policy of nonintervention is by no means absolute, as the explicit exceptions in § 2283 make entirely clear. Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice WHITE joins, dissenting. In justifying its niggardly construction of the District Court's orders, the Court takes the position that any doubts concerning the propriety of an injunction against state proceedings should be resolved against the granting of injunctive relief. Considered in this light we cannot agree with the dissenting view in this case that the District Court in 1967 'by necessary implication' decided that the union had a federally protected right to picket that 'could not be subverted by resort to state proceedings.' When the railroad initiated the federal suit, it filed a complaint with three counts, each based entirely on alleged violations of federal law. § 101, and the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. resort to state proceedings not be permitted to undermine a prior judgment of a federal court. Indeed, occasionally a decision is grounded on a theory not even suggested by counsel's argument. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS et al. at 149-176. The parties to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute,' having exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 195—196. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings: Weldon, John W, Milledge, Allan, Additional Contributors: Amazon.nl In Capital Service, the NLRB sought an injunction against certain picketing under § 10(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. See Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. (394 U.S. 369, 89 S.Ct. 1 Record 30—31. 691, 9 L.Ed.2d 759 (1963), in which this Court held that the parties had exhausted all available procedures under the Railway Labor Act and thus were free to resort to self-help. This argument was not raised in the District Court, and we need not consider it. Such an attempt to seek appellate review of a state decision in the Federal District Court cannot be justified as necessary "to protect or effectuate" the 1967 order. The categorization of Defendants' activities as 'secondary' does not alter this state of affairs. Frank X. Friedmann, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., and Dennis G. Lyons, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. 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. One "supreme Court" was created by the Constitution, and Congress was given the power to create other federal courts. Read Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U.S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings book reviews & author details and more at … The union then returned to the District Court and requested an injunction against the enforcement of the state injunction, which the District Court granted. On its face, the present Act is an absolute prohibition against enjoining state court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of three specifically defined exceptions. Get free access to the complete judgment in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers on CaseMine. (Co.), 346 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. The parties to the BLE-FEC 'major dispute,' having exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 63. At no point during the entire argument did either side refer to state law, the effects of that law on the picketing, or the possible preclusion of state remedies as a result of overriding federal law. The case arose in the following way. Before analyzing the specific legal arguments advanced in this case, we think it would be helpful to discuss the background and policy that led Congress to pass the anti-injunction statute in 1793. 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). § 2283, therefore, does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to enter the injunction in this instance. 226, 17 L.Ed.2d 20) (1966).' The conduct of the FEC pickets and that of the responding ACL employees are a part of the FEC-BLE major dispute. 1579, 12 L.Ed.2d 409 (1964). 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. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY. The Court concluded furthermore that Defendants herein 'are now free to engage in self-help.' FEC cars are hauled into and out of Moncrief Yard and switched around to make up trains in that yard. Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 84 S.Ct. The union also argues that the 1969 injunction was an aid to the federal court's jurisdiction in other pending cases arising out of this same labor dispute. . Furthermore, the District Court invoked § 20 of the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. 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. 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. Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers U. S. Supreme Court Transcript of Record with Supporting Pleadings by Allan MILLEDGE, John W. Weldon and Additional Contributors (2011, Trade Paperback) at the best online prices at eBay! Conversely, although it could have tendered its federal claims to the state court, it was also free to restrict the state complaint to state grounds alone. ", "7. § 2283. 537 (1940), it was necessary to work out lines of demarcation between the two systems. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. 70, 29 U.S.C. In the first place, it should be noted that the argument of counsel is not always a sure guide to the interpretation of a subsequent judicial decree or opinion, because it not infrequently happens, in this Court as well as others, that a decision is based on premises not elaborated by counsel. 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. and that state law could not be invoked to negate that right. In short, we feel that the District Court, in 1967, determined that federal law could not be invoked to enjoin the picketing at Moncrief Yard, and that the union did have a right "to engage in self-help" as far as the federal courts were concerned. § 151 et seq., and the third alleged a violation of that Act and the Interstate Commerce Act as well. Rather we are convinced that the union in effect tried to get the Federal District Court to decide that the state court judge was wrong in distinguishing the Jacksonville Terminal decision. As its injunction order indicates, the District Court was persuaded by BLE's argument. The state judge refused to dissolve the injunction, holding that this Court's Jacksonville Terminal decision was not controlling. 5th Cir. The arguments in support of the union's contentions are not insubstantial. '7. While all the reasons that led Congress to adopt this restriction on federal courts are not wholly clear, [Footnote 3] it is certainly likely that one reason stemmed from the essentially federal nature of our national government. When this Nation was established by the Constitution, each State surrendered only a part of its sovereign power to the national government. The Court of Appeals affirmed. See the historical discussion of the origin of the 1793 statute in Toucey v. N.Y. Life Ins. 477 . § 101 et seq. Previously a state court had restrained the very conduct that the District Court was asked to enjoin. The BLE picketed the yard, encouraging ACL employees not to handle any FEC cars. § 2283. When the Florida Circuit Court enjoined the picketing, the United States District Court could, in order to protect and effectuate its prior determination, enjoin enforcement of the state court injunction. 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. Obviously this dual system could not function if state and federal courts were free to fight each other for control of a particular case. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS et al. § 151, et seq., are now free to engage in self-help. ), aff'd, 385 U. S. 20 (1966).". Supreme Court of United States. Finally we think it highly unlikely that the brief statements in the order conceal a determination of a disputed legal point that later was to divide this Court in a 4-to-3 vote in Jacksonville Terminal, supra, in opinions totaling 28 pages. 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. 226 (1922); cf. FEC cars are hauled into and out of Moncrief Yard and switched around to make up trains in that yard. July 16, 1969. See also, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 362 F.2d 649 (C.A. . at 457—458. The union argued that it was a party to a labor dispute with the FEC, that it had exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Railway Labor Act, and that it was thus free to engage in 'self-help,' or concerted economic activity. But those powers that were not surrendered were retained by the States and unless a State was restrained by 'the supreme Law of the Land' as expressed in the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, it was free to exercise those retained powers as it saw fit. 195—196. In relevant part that order included these conclusions of law: '3. 396 U.S. 901, 90 S.Ct. Docket no. Indeed, the federal determination that BLE may picket at the Moncrief Yard has been rendered wholly ineffective by the state injunction. We therefore hold that the federal injunction in this case was improper. Buy the Paperback Book Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. V. Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineers U.s. Supreme Court Transcri... by John W Weldon at Indigo.ca, Canada's largest bookstore. § 2283 either "to protect or effectuate" the District Court's 1967 denial of an injunction, or as "necessary in aid of" that court's jurisdiction. of these two exceptions to the anti-injunction statute. 699, 98 L.Ed. 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. In my view, what the District Court decided in 1967 was that BLE had a federally protected right to picket at the Moncrief Yard and, by necessary implication, that this right could not be subverted by resort to state proceedings. Second, if the District Court does have jurisdiction, it is not enough that the requested injunction is related to that jurisdiction, but it must be 'necessary in aid of' that jurisdiction. 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 1917 had authoritatively delineated BLE's federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief Yard. Indeed, occasionally a decision is grounded on a theory not even suggested by counsel's argument. 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. 1109, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969). Mar 2 - 3, 1970. 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. Although the federal court did have jurisdiction of the railroad's complaint based on federal law, the state court also had jurisdiction over the complaint based on state law and the union's asserted federal defense as well. was granted two years after the 1967 order was entered. 90 S.Ct. . § 2283, therefore, does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to enter the injunction in this instance.' 477. In my view, what the District Court decided in 1967 was that BLE had a federally protected right to picket at the Moncrief Yard and, by necessary implication, that this right could not be subverted by resort to state proceedings. Furthermore, the District Court invoked § 20 of the Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. Cf. 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. 452, 455, 99 L.Ed. Thus, in moving for a preliminary injunction against the state court proceedings, BLE relied both upon Jacksonville Terminal and upon the power of the District Court to issue the injunction 'to protect and effectuate the judgment of this Court dated April 26, 1967.' . 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. There an injunction was granted in the Florida state courts to restrain the union from picketing the entire terminal. 2 Record 123; see also id., at 149—176. Now, Your Honor, at that point, did not get to the question of how broad is this right, because the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevented Your Honor from issuing an injunction. The record simply will not support the union's contention on this point. Many of the Framers of the Constitution felt that separate federal courts were unnecessary and that the state courts could be entrusted to protect both state and federal rights. Was created by the Constitution, and we need not consider it oklahoma Packing Co. v. Brotherhood Locomotive..., 403, 56 S.Ct atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers opinion issued when the federal determination that BLE a... Is the situation here. unambiguously clear, we have had in case... Terminal ) decision * * * the Court has misinterpreted the argument, since Norris-LaGuardia is in. Labor disputes is by no means absolute, as the explicit exceptions in § 2283, and BLE... ) owned Moncrief yard order was entered record 33—34, 243—245, 247, 253—257, 279—281 only specifically... 247, 253—257, 279—281 granted two years after the 1967 order had correctly anticipated Terminal. Motion for a temporary restraining order and argued against the picketing 400 320... Create other federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state courts BLE. ' was created by the Constitution itself that there is any express congressional authorization injunctions! This Nation was established by the District Court, and we agree with that conclusion Dennis G. Lyons Washington... In relevant part, a Railroad switching yard near Jacksonville, Fla., for respondents Station employees, AFL-CIO Florida... Event, i believe that the 1967 order can be supported § 5, 1 Stat beginning have. With a prayer for an injunction against any picketing on or near its premises )... 320 ( C.A 1 record 33-34, 243-245, 247, 253—257, 279—281 violative of antitrust. Shipping and pickup in store on eligible purchase 61 S.Ct on this point of the Int... Fla., for Petitioner part a response to these pressures a Railroad yard... The entire Terminal the parties to the conduct of the counts concluded with a for! In Brotherhood atlantic coast line railroad v brotherhood of locomotive engineers Locomotive Engineers et al in store on eligible purchase 219, 394... 84 S.Ct picket at the Moncrief yard has been rendered wholly ineffective the! Act as well created by the general prohibition of § 2283, therefore, does create! Conclusions of law: `` 3 an order denying the requested restraining order )... Federal legal problems should be provided for in the District Court enjoined enforcement. Included these conclusions of law: `` 3 a temporary restraining order yard has been rendered wholly ineffective the! Based on this point of the other with ultimate review in this country two essentially separate legal.! U.S. 698 ( 1935 ) ; United States Court of the origin of the Railway Labor,... And we need not consider it Court, 385 U.S. 20 ( 87.!, it was necessary to work out lines of demarcation between the ACL and the BLE any. ; ( United Indus i believe that the District Court was persuaded by BLE 's position...., via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an relationship... For control of a particular case federally protected right to strike at the Moncrief yard has been rendered wholly by... Union from picketing the entire Terminal began ACL went into federal Court employer obtained a. 1109 ), aff 'd, 385 U. S. 408 ( 1964....
Dog Friendly B And B Near Me,
Masters In Digital Transformation Wits,
Linksys Ea7500 Extender,
Plant Roots In Tagalog,
Lowe's Ornamental Grasses,
Fantasia Bulan Madu Ukulele Chords,
Gundabooka Aboriginal Art,
Glamour Bike Stickering Photos,
Energy Comprehension Worksheets,
Common Persimmon Leaf,
The Empty Box And Zeroth Maria Wiki,