State Bar v. Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen
| Decision Date | 04 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 17,17 |
| Citation | 132 N.W.2d 78,374 Mich. 152 |
| Parties | The STATE BAR of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. The BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
J. Cameron Hall, Detroit, Phillip C. Kelly, Jackson, for plaintiff and appellee.
Walter M. Nelson, Detroit, John J. Naughton, Chicago, Ill., Henslee & Henslee, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for defendants and appellants.
Before the Entire Bench.
Plaintiff's bill was filed January 28, 1959, in the Jackson circuit. It was designed to obtain relief corresponding to that which was sought about the same time by the Virginia State Bar, against the same defendant Brotherhood, in the chancery court of Richmond, Virginia. For the history of the Virginia Case, and for understanding of its ultimately controlling effect here, we refer to Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1113, 12 L.Ed.2d 89, decided April 20, 1964.
The Jackson county circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiff State Bar, finding as applicable certain then unreversed and apparently controlling lower court decisions. The circuit court concluded:
'This same matter has been before the courts of the states of Illinois, Iowa, Oklahoma, Virginia, Nebraska, and Missouri. The majority of these states, in one form or another, have approved the decisions of the Illinois Supreme Court, Missouri being the only state to prohibit it, and the State of Virginia prohibiting recommendation of any particular counsel. 1
'This court feels that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.'
Decree below, entered under date of September 14, 1962, enjoined the defendants in much the same manner as was done by the chancery court of Richmond. The defendants having appealed from such decree, and it appearing that submission to the Supreme Court of the Virginia Case was then imminent, order entered here January 2, 1964 as follows:
'On reading and filing appellants' December 26 motion for continuance, and upon consideration of the summary appearing in 32 LW 3006 pertaining to like questions that are due for January argument in the case identified below;
'It is ordered that submission of this cause on appeal be and the same is hereby continued pending final determination, by the Supreme Court of the United States, of the case of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar [Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan
...for amendment of the complaint 'to seek, if it be so advised, relief not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's said opinion.' 374 Mich. 152, 155, 132 N.W.2d 78, 79. After remand, the State Bar made a motion for further proceedings. That motion was heard on February 5, 1965, at which time th......
-
People v. Posner
...M.S.A. § 28.642. An injunction against the union's activities was reversed and remanded by the Michigan Supreme Court (374 Mich. 152, 132 N.W.2d 78 (1965)). The circuit court then entered a decree enjoining the union from giving or furnishing legal advice to its members or to their families......
-
Woll v. Kelley
...(1933).8 401 U.S. 576, 91 S.Ct. 1076, 28 L.Ed.2d 339 (1971), reversing 383 Mich. 201, 174 N.W.2d 811 (1970), which grew out of 374 Mich. 152, 132 N.W.2d 78 (1965); also see, United Mine Workers of America, District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 88 S.Ct. 353, 10 L.Ed.2d......
-
State Bar of Mich. v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen
...to seek, if it be so advised, relief not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's said opinion.' (State Bar of Michigan v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 374 Mich. 152, 155, 132 N.W.2d 78, 79). The ensuing events of present concern appear in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Commonwealth ......