Opinion ID: 1191269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether there existed an impasse between hsta and boe.

Text: Within the context of the instant case, Judge Kawakami's ruling is determinative on the question of whether an impasse existed between HSTA and BOE. In a separate proceeding wherein HSTA was a party, as we have noted in footnote numbered 2, Judge Kawakami ruled that ... H-PERB may not declare an impasse, ... unless it finds the existence of the precondition (good-faith negotiations) at least on the part of the party claiming the right to strike, and did set aside the decision of HPERB that impasse existed between HSTA and BOE. In the contempt proceedings below, the trial court took judicial notice of the record and proceedings of the legal proceedings had before Judge Kawakami. On this appeal there is no showing that Judge Kawakami lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or over HSTA. We are of the opinion that HSTA was bound by the lawful order of Judge Kawakami, notwithstanding the fact that an appeal on said order was under consideration by this court. The United States Supreme Court in Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-190, 42 S.Ct. 277, 280, 66 L.Ed. 550 (1922), stated: An injunction duly issuing out of a court of general jurisdiction with equity powers upon pleadings properly invoking its action, and served upon persons made parties therein and within the jurisdiction, must be obeyed by them, however erroneous the action of the court may be, even if the error be in the assumption of the validity of a seeming but void law going to the merits of the case. It is for the court of first instance to determine the question of validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by itself or by a higher court, its order based on its decision are to be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its lawful authority, to be punished. See also United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). Thus, HSTA acted at its peril and is in clear violation of the preliminary injunctive order of October 20, 1972.