BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN ET AL.
v.
BANGOR & AROOSTOOK RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

U.S. | 1967-12-11
No. 353
Mr. Justice Black would grant the petition and set the case for argument.
389 U.S. 327 Supreme Court of the United States (1967) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 19 L. Ed. 2d 560 · 88 S. Ct. 437 · 1967 U.S. LEXIS 68 · SCDB 1967-041
Cited by 75 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen sought Supreme Court review of a Court of Appeals decision in a labor dispute involving contempt findings against the union for striking in violation of a District Court restraining order related to train manning provisions. The Supreme Court denied certiorari because the case was not yet ripe for review, as the Court of Appeals had remanded it to the District Court to determine whether contempt had occurred and, if so, what penalties were appropriate.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The order of December 4, 1967, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari is vacated.

This case is a consequence of a dispute with respect to the scope of an arbitration award governing the manning of trains and engines in freight service. The union took the position that the award had no effect after 12:01 a. m., March 31, 1966. On March 28, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order forbidding a strike. On March 31, the union struck against a number of railroads. The District Court entered contempt orders, imposing substantial fines for alleged violation of its restraining order. The Court of Appeals ruled on various legal issues presented to it but remanded to the District Court to consider whether there had in fact been a contempt, and, also, if there was á contempt, whether it was “of such magnitude as to warrant retention, in part or to any extent, of the coercive fine originally provided for in contemplation of an outright refusal to obey.”

Petitioners seek certiorari to review the adverse rulings made by the Court of Appeals. However, because the Court of Appeals remanded the case, it is not yet ripe for review by this Court. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. See Hamilton Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers, 240 U. S. 251, 257-258 (1916).

Mr. Justice Black would grant the petition and set the case for argument.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

  • Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1975)
    …. 2d 925 (CA9 1971) (suit for injunctive relief brought by the United States against employees of a federal agency) ; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 127 U. S. App. D. C. 23, 380 F. 2d 570, cert. denied, 389 U. S. 327 (1967) (proceeding under Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq.); NLRB v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, 193 F. 2d 979 (CA5 1952) (proceeding brought for violation of § 7 of the Wagner Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, now 29 U. S. C. § 157…
  • Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
    …ote 107, 321 U.S. at 329, 64 S.Ct. at 592. . See Maggio v. Zeitz, supra note 109, 333 U.S. at 72-73 and n. 6, 68 S.Ct. 401; cf. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R., 127 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 35, 380 F. 2d 570, 582, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 327, 88 S.Ct. 437, 19 L.Ed.2d 560 (1967). See also 17 Am.Jur.2d Contempt § 51 (1964); 42 Am.Jur.2d Injunctions § 340 (1969). . See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1970). . See National Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council v. Shultz, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 281, 443…
  • Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO, 545 F.2d 1336 (3d Cir. 1976)
    …ence to civil contempt. Inland Steel Co. v. Local Union No. 1545, 505 F. 2d 293, 296-97 (7th Cir. 1974) and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v. Bangor & Aroostook RR., 127 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 380 F. 2d 570, 583, 587 n. 37, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 327, 88 S.Ct. 437, 19 L.Ed.2d 560 (1967), do expressly discuss the impact of the reversal of an injunction on a coercive contempt judgment. Both of these discussions, however, are dicta, since the injunctions involved in those cases were found to be val…

Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw