Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Bangor Aroostook Railroad Co, 353

Citation88 S.Ct. 437,389 U.S. 327,19 L.Ed.2d 560
Decision Date11 December 1967
Docket NumberNo. 353,353
PartiesBROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN et al. v. BANGOR & AROOSTOOK RAILROAD CO. et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., John Silard, Harriett R. Taylor, Isaac N. Groner, Harold C. Heiss, Donald W. Bennett, Alex Elson, Willard J. Lassers and Aaron S. Wolff, for petitioners.

Francis M. Shea, Richard T. Conway, James R. Wolfe and Charles I. Hopkins, Jr., for respondents.

The order of December 4, 1967, 389 U.S. 970, 88 S.Ct. 463, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari is vacated and the following order is entered:

PER CURIAM.

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 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 a 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-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Company, 240 U.S. 251, 257—258, 36 S.Ct. 269, 271, 60 L.Ed. 629 (1916).

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice BLACK would grant the petition and set the case for argument.

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Lindsey v. City of Beaufort
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 29, 1995
    ...481 (1921); Brotherhood of Loc. Fire & Eng. v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R., 380 F.2d 570, 576 (D.C.Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 327, 88 S.Ct. 437, 19 L.Ed.2d 560 (1967); Marquette Cement Mfg. Co. v. FTC, 147 F.2d 589 (7th Cir.1945); Scott v. Beams, 122 F.2d 777, 788 (10th Cir. 1941), cert.......
  • Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • June 12, 1975
    ...Brotherhood of Loc. Fire. & Eng. v. Bangor & Aroostook R. R., 127 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 380 F.2d 570, 576 (1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 327, 88 S.Ct. 437, 19 L.Ed.2d 560; Littleton v. DeLashmutt, 188 F.2d 973, 975 (4th Cir. 1951) (per curiam), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 897, 72 S.Ct. 229, 96 L.Ed. ......
  • Commonwealth of Pa. v. Local U. 542, Int. U. of Op. Eng.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • December 4, 1974
    ...of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers v. Bangor and Aroostock R. Co., 127 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 380 F.2d 570, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 327, 88 S.Ct. 437, 19 L. Ed.2d 560 (1967). It is my duty, as the judge against whom a § 144 affidavit has been filed, to pass upon the legal sufficiency of the facts......
  • Muniz v. Hoffman 20 8212 1924
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1975
    ...of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 127 U.S.App.D.C 23, 380 F.2d 570, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 327, 88 S.Ct. 437, 19 L.Ed.2d 560 (1967) (proceeding under Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.); NLRB v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, 193 F.2d 979 (CA5 1952) (proceedi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Package bombs, footlockers, and laptops: what the disappearing Container Doctrine can tell us about the Fourth Amendment.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 100 No. 4, September 2010
    • September 22, 2010
    ...cause focused upon the container prior to being place in the automobile"). (188) Ross, 456 U.S. at 825 (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 327 (189) 500 U.S. at 565. (190) Id. at 580 (noting that it "remains a cardinal principle that searches conducted outside the judicial process, wit......
  • The appearance of justice revisited.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 86 No. 3, March 1996
    • March 22, 1996
    ...of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co., 380 F.2d 570, 576 & n.13 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 327, 328 (1967). Second, courts have required that the affidavit make specific allegations of facts that raise the belief in the judge's bias or prejudice......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT