AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY & MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION 998, ET AL.
v.
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court held that the case was moot because the arbitration award had expired and could no longer affect the rights of the litigants.
Petitioners sought review of an arbitration award issued under the Wisconsin Public Utility Anti-Strike Law. The award became effective on April 11, 1…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Advisory Opinion cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion of the Court.
The parties to this case are the same transit workers, the same transit company, and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board before the Court in No. 329, decided this day, ante, p. 383. This action arises out of the same threatened strike discussed in that case. After a restraining order had led to postponement of the strike, the Wisconsin Board appointed arbitrators to “hear and determine” the dispute in accordance with the terms of the Wisconsin Public Utility Anti-Strike Law. Wis. Stat., 1949, § 111.55. Upon the filing of the arbitrators’ award, petitioners filed an action in a state circuit court to review that award. Id., § 111.60. That court affirmed the award and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, 257 Wis. 53, 42 N. W. 2d 477 (1950). We granted certiorari in this case together with No. 329, 340 U. S. 874 (1950).
In the courts below and in this Court, petitioners attack the arbitration award on the same grounds urged against the Wisconsin Act as a whole in No. 329, and, in addition, raise issues peculiar to the arbitration phase of that act. But we do not reach these issues since it is clear that this case has become moot.* The arbitration, award became effective on April 11, 1949. Under the Wisconsin Act, that award “shall continue effective for one year from that date,” unless sooner terminated by agreement of the parties. Wis. Stat., 1949, § 111.59. We are informed that this award was superseded by agreement, and, in any event, the one-year period has elapsed. There being no subject matter upon which the judgment of this Court can operate, the cause is moot.
It is argued that the Wisconsin courts have adopted a practice of deciding questions of importance even though the case has become moot, and we are urged to follow that same practice. But whatever the practice in Wisconsin courts, “A federal court is without power to decide moot questions or to give advisory opinions which cannot affect the rights of the litigants in the case before it. United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U. S. 113, 115-16, and cases cited; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466, 475-77.” St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U. S. 41, 42 (1943).
It appearing that the cause has become moot, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is vacated without costs and the cause is remanded for such proceedings as by that court may be deemed appropriate.
It is so ordered.
*
It has also been argued that No. 329 and No. 438 are moot by reason of the settlement of the immediate dispute which led to the strike action in each case. The injunction before us in No. 329 is "perpetual” by its terms so that the action does not become moot even though the decree be obeyed. J. I. Case Co. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 332, 334 (1944); Federal Trade Comm’n v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 304 U. S. 257, 260 (1938), and cases cited therein. As to No. 438, the judgment below imposes fines upon petitioners. No question of mootness can be raised so long as enforcement of that judgment is sought.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Local NO. 8-6, OIL, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Missouri, 361 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1960)…and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653. See Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U. S. 416. To express an opinion upon the merits of the appellants’ contentions would be to [*368] ignore this basic limitation upon the duty and function of the Court, and to disregard principles of judicial administration long established and repeatedly fol…1 / 2
-
In re Combined Metals Reduction Co. v. Gemmill, 557 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1977)…the sole ground of public importance.” Alton & So. Ry. Co. v. International Ass’n of Mach, and Aerospace Workers, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 463 F. 2d 872, 880 (1972), citing Amalgamated Ass’n of Street etc. Employees Div. 998 v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Bd., 340 U.S. 416, 71 S.Ct. 373, 95 L.Ed. 389 (1951). In short, we reject all of the appellant’s arguments against the trustee’s motion to dismiss the property appeals for mootness. None of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine are applicable, and in view of the f…
-
Alton & S. Ry. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, 463 F.2d 872 (D.C. Cir. 1972)…880] ing a future projection of the actual dispute that precipitated the litigation. The court will not decide a moot case on the sole ground of public importance, Amalgamated Association of Street etc. Employees Div. 998 v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Bd., 340 U.S. 416, 418, 71 S.Ct. 373, 95 L.Ed. 389 (1951). When the court views the public interest as greater a lesser possibility of repetition may suffice, Moore v. Ogilvie, supra. A decision that the case is so dead that the court totally lacks jurisdiction appar…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J. I. Case Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 321 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1944)
- ST. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1943)
- United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1920)
- United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1916)
- Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 304 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1938)
- Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 874 (U.S. 1950)
- Amalgamated Ass'n of St. v. Wis. Emp. Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 874 (U.S. 1950)