Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/390/557/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-11-13 03:04:04
Document Index: 655358452

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1441', '§ 1441', '§ 301', '§ 4', '§ 1441', '§ 1450']

AVCO CORP. V. MACHINISTS, 390 U. S. 557 (1968) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 390 > AVCO CORP. V. MACHINISTS, 390 U. S. 557 (1968)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 390 U. S. 557
376 F.2d 337, affirmed. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Respondents then moved in the Federal District Court for removal of the case. [Footnote 1] A motion to remand to the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It is thus clear that the claim under this collective bargaining agreement is one arising under the "laws of the United States" within the meaning of the removal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). It likewise seems clear that this suit is within the "original jurisdiction" of the District Court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and (b). It is true that the Court, by a 5-to-3 decision in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, held that, although a case was properly in the federal district court by reason of § 301, the Norris-LaGuardia Act bars that court from issuing an injunction in the labor dispute. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We find it unnecessary to rule on the holding of the Court of Appeals below that "the remedies available in State Courts are limited to the remedies available under Federal law." 376 F.2d 343. That conclusion would suggest that state courts are precluded by § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act from issuing injunctions in labor disputes, even though the defendant does not exercise his right -- which we confirm today -- to remove the case to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), and the state court therefore retains jurisdiction over the action. We have no occasion to resolve that matter here, since respondents did elect to have the case removed.
Another question raised here is whether the District Court, to which the action had been removed, should have dissolved the injunction issued by the Tennessee state court. There is, of course, no question of the power of the District Court to dissolve the injunction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1450. Whether it did so because it felt that action was required by Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, or because of its equity powers, or both, is not clear. But the Court of Appeals went much further and said in a dictum that "the remedies available in State Courts are limited to the remedies available under Federal law." 376 F.2d 343. We reserve decision on those questions.