Gibbons v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks

Supreme Court of Kansas

Gibbons v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks

608 P.2d 1320, 227 Kan. 557, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 263, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2083

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 5, 1980

DocketNo. 50,440

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 608 P.2d 1320 (Gibbons v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibbons v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, 608 P.2d 1320, 227 Kan. 557, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 263, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2083 (kan 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In July, 1978, the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers and Express and Station Employees (BRAC) commenced a legal strike against the Norfolk & Western Railway Co. (N & W). As a part of their striking activities BRAC established picket lines around the premises of the Rock Island Railroad which were removed from, and no part of, the property occupied by N & W. The Rock Island filed suit to enjoin such secondary picketing under the provisions of K.S.A. 44-809(13) and (14). After a hearing the trial court denied the request for an injunction holding that the matter was controlled by federal law and that federal law as enunciated in Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 22 L.Ed.2d 344, 89 S.Ct. 1109 (1969), prevented state proscription of the picketing by BRAC.

It is conceded that while jurisdiction to hear the action is vested in the state courts, federal law must be applied by the court. It is further conceded that no labor dispute now exists between BRAC and N & W and no picketing is being done by BRAC on Rock Island property. Any opinion rendered at this time would be advisory only as the issues between the parties are moot. This court has held that even though the issues in a particular appeal may be moot if the issues are capable of repetition and are of extreme public importance then the appeal may be considered and an opinion rendered. Reece Shirley & Ron’s, Inc. v. Retail Store Employees Union & Local 782, 225 Kan. 470, 592 P.2d 433 (1979).

In the case now before the court all parties were governed by [558]*558federal statutory law including the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the Railway Labor Act and the federal cases interpreting those statutes. We do not deem it to be in the public interest for the court at this time to attempt to render an advisory opinion upon conflicting federal decisions and statutes when no actual controversy now exists.

The appeal is dismissed as being moot.

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

Per Curiam:

In July, 1978, the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers and Express and Station Employees (BRAC) commenced a legal strike against the Norfolk & Western Railway Co. (N & W). As a part of their striking activities BRAC established picket lines around the premises of the Rock Island Railroad which were removed from, and no part of, the property occupied by N & W. The Rock Island filed suit to enjoin such secondary picketing under the provisions of K.S.A. 44-809(13) and (14). After a hearing the trial court denied the request for an injunction holding that the matter was controlled by federal law and that federal law as enunciated in Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 22 L.Ed.2d 344, 89 S.Ct. 1109 (1969), prevented state proscription of the picketing by BRAC.

It is conceded that while jurisdiction to hear the action is vested in the state courts, federal law must be applied by the court. It is further conceded that no labor dispute now exists between BRAC and N & W and no picketing is being done by BRAC on Rock Island property. Any opinion rendered at this time would be advisory only as the issues between the parties are moot. This court has held that even though the issues in a particular appeal may be moot if the issues are capable of repetition and are of extreme public importance then the appeal may be considered and an opinion rendered. Reece Shirley & Ron’s, Inc. v. Retail Store Employees Union & Local 782, 225 Kan. 470, 592 P.2d 433 (1979).

In the case now before the court all parties were governed by [558]*558federal statutory law including the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the Railway Labor Act and the federal cases interpreting those statutes. We do not deem it to be in the public interest for the court at this time to attempt to render an advisory opinion upon conflicting federal decisions and statutes when no actual controversy now exists.

The appeal is dismissed as being moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 P.2d 1320, 227 Kan. 557, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 263, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbons-v-brotherhood-of-railway-airline-steamship-clerks-kan-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack