LOCATION:Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters
DOCKET NO.: 72-1566
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
CITATION: 415 US 423 (1974)
ARGUED: Jan 08, 1974
DECIDED: Mar 04, 1974
Duane B. Beeson –
George J. Tichy, II – for petitioners
Media for Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – March 04, 1974 in Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters
Warren E. Burger:
The disposition in number 72-1566, Granny Goose Foods against the Brotherhood of Teamsters and others will be announced by Mr. Justice Marshall.
This case is here on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
We granted certiorari in this case to resolve the conflict among the circuits as to the proper interpretation of Section 1450 of Title 28 of the United States Court which provides that in cases removed from state to Federal Court, state court orders issued prior to the removal, shall remain in effect after removal until modified or dissolved by the Federal Court.
In this case the California State Court issued a ex parte temporary restraining order against certain strike activities of the respondent union.
The case had been then removed to a Federal District Court.
Over six months later, the Union began its strike activities again.
The District Court held that the Union was in criminal contempt of the restraining order and imposed a substantial fine.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the restraining order had expired long before the date of the alleged contempt.
The Court reasoned that under the limitations imposed by both State and Federal laws for the duration of ex parte temporary restraining orders, the order could not have remained in effect more than 20 days after it was issued.
It held that Section 1450, was not intended to go along indefinitely for the life of the ex parte temporary restraining orders, and case is removed to Federal Court.
For the reasons expressed more fully in the opinion filed with the clerk today, we agree with that interpretation of the Ninth Circuit and therefore affirm its judgment.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist has filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Powell joined.