Case Name: CASEY et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1938-12-13
Citations: 100 F.2d 354
Docket Number: No. 6401
Parties: CASEY et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 100
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
CASEY et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
No. 6401.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Dec. 13, 1938.
BIGGS, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part.
James A. Hamill, of Jersey City, N. J. (Joseph C. Glavin, of Jersey City, N. J., of counsel), for appellants.
Abraham J. Isserman, of Newark, N. J. (Arthur Garfield Hays, of New York City, Abraham J. Isserman, of Newark, N. J., Edward J. Malament and Julius J. Rosenberg, both of New York City, and Sol D. Kapelsohn, of Newark, N. J., of counsel), for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
DAVIS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction entered by the District Court which, among other things, restrained the appellants from interfering with the appellees while engaged in picketing.
The picketing with which the appellants are alleged to have interfered was carried on by Local No. 654 of Brooklyn, New York, of the Boot and Shoe Workers Union at the plant of the Uneeda Slipper Corporation at No. 26 Exchange Place, Jersey City, N. J., and also by Local No. 76-B of the Upholsterers, Carpet and Linoleum Mechanics International Union of North America at the plant of the Pacific Parlor Frame Company at No. 18 Whiton Street, Jersey City, New Jersey.
Since the injunction was issued, the Uneeda Slipper Corporation has filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy (District Court Docket No. 27,469), has discontinued all operations and is out of business. The Pacific Parlor Frame Company and Local No. 76-B have entered into a contract agreeably settling the differences between them and the appellees are no longer interested in picketing the company.
Consequently the questions have become moot, and, on the authority of Leader et al. v. Apex Hosiery Co., 302 U.S. 656, 58 S. Ct. 362, 82 L.Ed. 508, the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate the injunction and dismiss the bill of complaint.