Boehle v. Electro Metallurgical Co., Civil Action No. 3412.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3412. |
| Citation | 72 F. Supp. 21 |
| Parties | BOEHLE v. ELECTRO METALLURGICAL CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Harry George, Jr., and William A. Babcock, Jr., both of Portland, Or., for plaintiff.
Gunther Krause, of Portland, Or. (of Krause & Evans of Portland, Or.) for defendant.
The Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S. C.A. §§ 251-263, is a case of "chickens come home to roost."
In 1932 Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., which withdrew jurisdiction from Federal Courts to issue injunctions in labor disputes.
Now, Congress has withdrawn jurisdiction from Federal Courts to consider labor claims of the Portal-to-Portal type.
Both the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act were put in terms of restricting jurisdiction "to avoid constitutional questions." Both are procedural devices to avoid face-to-face conflict with substantive issues. Both are bad in principle; for, if on rising tides of public opinion the jurisdiction of Federal Courts can be tinkered with to suit the passions of the hour, the independence of the courts will be gravely impaired. The average judge will not venture outside old and well-charted waters, if he knows that Congress may revoke jurisdiction in the case, if dissatisfied with the way it is decided.
In short, jurisdiction of the courts should not be a legislative football.
Despite this view, I do not see how a Federal District Judge could hold this most recent tampering with jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, while at the same time upholding the constitutionality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, as is required by countless decisions over the last fifteen years, including decisions of the Supreme Court.
So, this case and others of the Portal-to-Portal type that have been assigned to me will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devine v. Joshua Hendy Corporation
...1947, D.C.Texas, 71 F.Supp. 929. 43 Burfeind v. Eagle-Picher Co. of Texas, supra, 71 F.Supp. at page 931. 44 Boehle v. Electrical Metallurgical Co., 1947, D.C. Oregon, 72 F.Supp. 21. 45 Boehle v. Electrical Metallurgical Co., supra, 72 F.Supp. at page 46 To the cases given in preceding note......
-
Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
... ... with respect to existing causes of action were unconstitutional. The judge then held the ... criminal penalties and in addition fixes civil liability for violation, providing that any ... 690; Boehl v. Electro-Metalurgical Co., D.C., 72 F.Supp. 21; Darr et ... ...
-
Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
...Co., D.C.S.D.Tex., 72 F.Supp. 690; Cochran v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., D.C.W.D.Wash., 73 F.Supp. 288; Boehle v. Electro Metallurgical Co., D.C. Or., 72 F.Supp. 21; Burfeind v. Eagle-Picher Co., D.C.N.D.Tex., 71 F.Supp. 929; Fajack v. Cleveland Graphite Co., D.C.N. D.Ohio, 73 F.Supp. 30......
-
Battaglia v. General Motors Corporation
...Supreme Court is conferred by Congress, it may at the will of Congress be taken away in whole or in part. E. g., Boehle v. Electro Metallurgical Co., D.C. Or., 72 F.Supp. 21; Story v. Todd Houston Shipbuilding Corp., D.C.S.D. Tex., 72 F.Supp. 690; Johnson v. Park City Consol. Mines Co., D.C......