389 U.S. 327

389 U.S. 327

88 S.Ct. 437

19 L.Ed.2d 560

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN et al.
v.
BANGOR & AROOSTOOK RAILROAD CO. et al.

No. 353.

Dec. 11, 1967.

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., John Silard, Harriett R. Taylor, Isaac N. Groner, Harold C. Heiss, Donald W. Bennett, Alex Elson, Willard J. Lassers and Aaron S. Wolff, for petitioners.

Francis M. Shea, Richard T. Conway, James R. Wolfe and Charles I. Hopkins, Jr., for respondents.

The order of December 4, 1967, 389 U.S. 970, 88 S.Ct. 463, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari is vacated and the following order is entered:

PER CURIAM.

1

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 a 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.’

2

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-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Company, 240 U.S. 251, 257—258, 36 S.Ct. 269, 271, 60 L.Ed. 629 (1916).

3

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.

4

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

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 389 U.S. 327

Recent Posts

WINTERBOTTOM v. WRIGHT, 152 Eng. Rep. 402 (Ex. 1842).

WINTERBOTTOM v. WRIGHT In the Exchequer, June 6, 1842. Reported in 10 Meeson & Welsby,…

3 weeks ago

YU v. POZNIAK-RICE, Cal. App. No. B337415 (July 21, 2025)

Filed 7/21/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

5 months ago

WING INFLATABLES, INC. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, Cal. App. No. A173263 (July 21, 2025)

Filed 7/21/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

5 months ago

NASRALLAH v. BARR, 590 U.S. 573 (2020)

140 S.Ct. 1683 (2020)590 U.S. 573 Nidal Khalid NASRALLAH, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney…

7 months ago

THOLE v. U.S. BANK N.A., 590 U.S. 538

140 S.Ct. 1615 (2020)590 US 538207 L. Ed. 2d 85 James J. THOLE, et al.,…

7 months ago

BANISTER v. DAVIS, 590 U.S. 504

140 S.Ct. 1698 (2020)590 U.S. 504 Gregory Dean BANISTER, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas…

7 months ago