Carlisle Lumber Co. v. Hope, 8159.
| Citation | 83 F.2d 92 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 8159.,8159. |
| Parties | CARLISLE LUMBER CO. v. HOPE et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Theodore B. Bruener, of Aberdeen, Wash., and Charles H. Paul, of Longview, Wash., for appellant.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., Owen P. Hughes, Asst. U. S. Atty., and E. J. Eagen, all of Seattle, Wash., Clifford D. O'Brien, of Portland, Or., and Bertram Edises, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Hope.
Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant has applied for an injunction pending appeal in the above-entitled matter. Appellant filed a bill in equity in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, seeking an injunction against appellee Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, and the members of that board, to prevent consideration of a complaint filed before it alleging unfair labor practice, as defined in the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S. C.A. § 151 et seq.), otherwise known as the Wagner Bill, enacted by Congress July 5, 1935. The trial court dismissed the bill and denied the injunctive relief.
The principal point urged by appellant as a ground for the issuance of an injunction by this court is that it is not engaged in interstate commerce, but that its activities are solely intrastate.
It was conceded on the argument by the appellee that the National Labor Relations Board would have no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce or persons engaged solely therein. The National Labor Act provides for a review of the decision of the Board by the Circuit Court of Appeals, or, in certain cases, by the District Court (section 10 29 U.S.C.A. § 160).
We are not persuaded that irreparable injury would result to the appellant from the hearing before the Board where the order of the Board is without force until a hearing before a court and an order of the court based thereon. Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion, we deny the application for temporary injunction without determining either the constitutionality of the act nor the rights of the appellant upon final hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co.
...to this court and applied for an injunction pending such appeal. On March 31, 1936, this court denied the application (Carlisle Lumber Co. v. Hope, 9 Cir., 83 F. 2d 92), saying:2 "We are not persuaded that irreparable injury would result to the appellant from the hearing before the Board wh......
-
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation Same v. Kenzie
...786; Heller Bros. Co. v. Lind, 66 App.D.C. 306, 86 F.2d 862; compare Bowen v. James Vernor Co., 6 Cir., 89 F.2d 968; Carlisle Lumber Co. v. Hope, 9 Cir., 83 F.2d 92; Lyons v. Eagle-Picher Lead Co., 10 Cir., 90 F.2d 321. 2 A Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at Bethl......
-
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...remanded with directions to dismiss the bill, determining that the NLRB was “proceeding within its lawful powers”); Carlisle Lumber Co. v. Hope, 83 F.2d 92, 92 (9th Cir.1936) (in an employer's suit to enjoin an NLRB Regional Director from considering an unfair labor practice complaint where......
- United States v. FOURTH NAT. BANK IN WICHITA, KAN.