Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad

389 U.S. 327, 88 S. Ct. 437, 19 L. Ed. 2d 560, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 68, 66 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2729
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 11, 1967·No. 353·Published·Cited by 50 cases

Opinion

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 *328 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad, 389 U.S. 327, 88 S. Ct. 437, 19 L. Ed. 2d 560, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 68, 66 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2729 (1967).

389 U.S. 327 (Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc.
931 F.3d 1363 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Guadalupe Martinez III v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Mount Soledad Memorial Assn. v. Trunk
567 U.S. 944 (Supreme Court, 2012)
Neopost, Inc. v. US Postal Service
District of Columbia, 2010
Lindsey Ex Rel. Lindsey v. City of Beaufort
911 F. Supp. 962 (D. South Carolina, 1995)
LaShawn A. v. Kelly
887 F. Supp. 297 (District of Columbia, 1995)
Virginia Military Institute v. United States
508 U.S. 946 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Farkas v. Ellis
768 F. Supp. 476 (S.D. New York, 1991)
Mercer v. Mitchell
908 F.2d 763 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)
NAACP, Jefferson County Branch v. McLaughlin
703 F. Supp. 1014 (District of Columbia, 1989)
Kammerman v. Kammerman
543 A.2d 794 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1988)
United States v. Darwin Construction Co.
680 F. Supp. 739 (D. Maryland, 1988)
NAACP, Jefferson County Branch v. Brock
619 F. Supp. 846 (District of Columbia, 1985)
Taylor v. United States
451 A.2d 859 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1982)
United States v. Jose L. Martinez
686 F.2d 334 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)