Firemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co.Annotate this Case
389 U.S. 327 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court
Firemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 389 U.S. 327 (1967)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v.
Bangor & Aroostook R. Co.
Decided December 11, 1967
389 U.S. 327
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Petition for certiorari denied because case held not ripe for review where Court of Appeals had ordered remand for District Court to determine if petitioner union was in contempt of District Court's order not to strike and, if so, whether that Court's coercive fine was warranted.
Reported below: 127 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 380 F.2d 570.
The order of December 4, 1967, denying the petition for a writ of certiorari is vacated.
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 Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers,240 U. S. 251, 240 U. S. 257-258 (1916).
MR. JUSTICE BLACK would grant the petition and set the case for argument.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.