Adair Pipeline Co. v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798
| Decision Date | 06 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 19666.,19666. |
| Citation | 325 F.2d 206 |
| Parties | ADAIR PIPELINE CO., Inc., Appellant, v. PIPELINERS LOCAL UNION NO. 798 et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Tracy N. DuBose, for Fischer, Wood, Burney & Nesbitt, Corpus Christi, Tex., Homer E. Dean, Jr., for Lloyd, Lloyd & Dean, Alice, Tex., for appellant.
Robert C. Eckhardt, for Eckhardt & Ryan, Houston, Tex., Edward Anderson, Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas.
The action was originally commenced in the 79th District Court of Jim Wells County, Texas, on the 29th of June, 1961. The suit was by appellant as plaintiff against the appellees, as defendants, for damages and for an injunction to restrain appellees generally from attempting by strikes or other actions to force appellant to enter into a union contract. Judge Woodrow Laughlin of the 79th District Court entered a temporary restraining order and set the same for hearing on a temporary injunction for July 10, 1961 at 9 o'clock A.M.
At approximately five minutes until 9 o'clock on July 10th, one of appellees' attorneys of record, Edward Anderson, came into the state courtroom for a brief time prior to the time that court was in session, bringing with him copies of a petition and bond for removal which had on July 10th been duly filed in the Federal District Court. He handed them to Homer E. Dean, Jr., one of appellant's attorneys of record and also presented copies to the Judge of the State Trial Court.
Shortly after the attorney for appellees left the court, it was suggested to the District Judge that a copy of the removal petition had not been filed in the office of the District Clerk for the 79th District Court, nor had the Honorable Woodrow Laughlin been requested to permit a copy of said petition for removal to be filed with him. Thereupon the district judge proceeded to hear evidence, and, upon the close thereof, the court entered its order of July 10th, granting a temporary injunction to appellant.
Again, appellees were duly and properly served with a temporary injunction on July 11, 1961, and their attorneys have never at any time attempted to discuss the matter in any way with appellant's counsel, nor did they at any time prior to March 2, 1962, file a copy of said removal petition with the Clerk of the 79th District Court of Jim Wells County, Texas.
Before the court convened on the 2nd day of March, 1962, appellees still not having made an appearance in the State Court by the filing of any answer or the filing with the clerk of the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
...have recognized the power of federal courts to enjoin state courts from proceeding in a removed case. Adair Pipeline Co. v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, 325 F.2d 206 (5th Cir.1963); E.D. Systems Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., supra, 674 F.2d at 458; Hyde Park Partners, L.P. v.......
-
Eastern v. Canty
...v. NAACP (La.App.1956), 90 So.2d 884; Adair Pipeline Co. v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798 (S.D.Tex.1962), 203 F.Supp. 434, Aff'd (5th Cir. 1963), 325 F.2d 206; Fossey v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 173, 258 N.E.2d 616; State v. Price (1972), 15 N.C.App. 599, 600-01, 190 S.E.2d 403, 404; Davis v......
-
Peterson v. BMI Refractories, Inc.
...Company, 770 F.2d 545 (5th Cir.1985); Adair Pipeline Co. v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, 203 F.Supp. 434 (S.D.Tex.1962), aff'd, 325 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1963); see also Covington v. Indemnity Insurance Co., 251 F.2d 930, 933 (5th Cir.) (citing Mackay v. Uinta Development Co., 229 U.S. 173,......
-
State of South Carolina v. Moore
...85 So.2d 588; State v. Francis, 261 N.C. 358, 134 S.E.2d 681; Schuchman v. State, Ind., 236 N.E.2d 830; Adair Pipeline Co. v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, 5 Cir., 325 F.2d 206. 22 ALI, Study of the Division of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts, tentative draft 5, 239-40; Wrig......
-
Federal Remedies for Sexual Discrimination Against Male Divorce Litigants
...Ind. 408, 236 N.E.2d 830 (1968). 33. As applied to interlocutory orders in civil cases, see Adair Pipeline Co. v. Pipe-liners Local 798, 325 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1963). 34. See Wade v. Bethesda Hospital, 337 F. Supp. 671, motion denied, 356 F. Supp. 380 (S.D. Ohio 1971). 35. 28 U.S. Code § 14......