Document: 375 U.S. 301 84 S.Ct. 391. 11 L.Ed.2d 347 N. L. LINER et al., Petitioners,v.JAFCO, INC., al. No. 43. Argued Nov. 21, 1963. Decided Jan. 6, 1964. S. Del Fuston, Chattanooga, Tenn., for petitioners. Jac Chambliss, respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Chattanooga Building Trades Council, AFL, is composed 17 building trades unions, including Hod-Carriers and Common Laborers' Union America its Local 846, two Respondent Rea Construction Company, a large North Carolina contractor, was engaged by respondent Jafco, Inc., as general contractor to erect shopping center on site in Cleveland, Tennessee. operated an open shop, workers project were paid lower wages than union scale. Council authorized place single picket at protest. petitioner Liner, carrying sign which read 'Rea Co., not under contract with A.F. L.,' began peaceful picketing August 8, 1960. job promptly ceased work. On same day sought ex parte injunction against from Tennessee Chancery Court, ordered issue upon execution filing bond. See 5 Tenn.Code Ann., 1955, § 23 1901. next day, 9, Jafco filed bond providing that, if action failed, 'shall well truly pay satisfy said (petitioners) all such costs, damages, interest, other sums may be awarded recovered Inc. any suit or suits hereafter broyght (sic) wrongfully suing out Injunction * *.' Thereupon issued,1 compliance it, work resumed. 2 petitioners moved Court dissolve ground that state court without jurisdiction adjudicate controversy because subject matter exclusively within cognizance National Labor Relations Board. motion denied September 29 order recited, 'There no bona fide labor dispute between parties this litigation therefore has (been) preempted Board.'2 Following hearing, made permanent final decree entered June 16, 1961. Petitioners appealed Appeals Tennessee, Eastern Section, affirmed January 12, 1962. opinion, officially reported, reported 49 L.R.R.M. 2585. Pending decision appeal, construction had been completed. Noting fact, stated, 'In first questions case have become moot.' However, went say, 'Further, we concur Chancellor's finding did exist.' L.R.R.M., 2587. Supreme unreported order, certiorari. We brought her, 371 961, consider validity light our 438, Union, A.F.L.—C.I.O. v. Curry, 542, 83 531, 9 514. hold issuance beyond power courts reverse judgment. 3 must respondents' challenge review courts' rejection petitioners' federal preemption claim. argument are bound appellate court's holding rendered moot completion construction. think, however, question mootness itself law pronounce Love Griffith, 266 32, 45 69 L.Ed. 157. In Texas trial dismissed enjoin enforcement allegedly unconstitutional rule barred Negroes voting Houston Democratic primary election. An appeal dismissal turn Civil since election was, time, long passed cause exist. This speaking through Holmes, implicitly precluded independent determination question, saying, 4 'When here there plain assertion rights court, local rules how far it shall reviewed do necessarily prevail. Davis Wechsler, 263 22, 24, 44 13, 68 143. Whether right given due recognition plaintiffs entitled invoke Ward (Board County Commissioners of) County, 253 17, 40 419, 64 751.' U.S., 33—34, S.Ct., not, think prejudiced appellants' constitutional rights. Since held, reversing ordering would futile; could date redress alleged injury. said: 6 'If stood before instance present grave should astute avoid hindrances way taking up. But situation. promulgated Executive Committee only taken Appellate No error infringed bill granted time. There obligation extend remedy what prayed.' 34, 7 contrast, prejudice affirming instant clear. plainly 'a substantial stake judgment *,' Fiswick United States, 329 211, 222, 67 224, 230, 91 196, exists apart unaffected Their interest derives undertaking indemnify them damages 'wrongfully' sued out. turns solely answer pressed beginning. If challenged here, recourse Thus, unlike supra, issues remain operative importance they come Court; substance effect right, cannot deemed hindrance question. where Court's merits 'cannot affect litigants it.' St. Pierre 319 41, 42, 63 910, 911, 87 1199.3 8 Moreover, particularly 'we taking' up Despite construction, superintendence conduct cognizable Board desirable 'if danger interference national policy averted,' San Diego Millmen's 2020 Garmon, 359 236, 245, 79 773, 780, 775. involves fundamental whether whatever parties. Congress invested exclusive arguably protected prohibited Act. supra. complained conduct, ordained—to further uniform regulation inconsistencies result application disparate remedies—that agency deal it. Weber Anheuser-Busch, 348 468, 75 480, 99 546. tended frustrate policy. true even conduct. For although granting appropriate remedies fact ceased, Mexia Textile Mills, 339 563, 70 826, 94 1067, completed, 74, Brotherhood Carpenters Joiners America, N.L.R.B., 341 707, 71 966, 95 1309, charges unfair practices six months their occurrence,4 employer armed incentive initiate proceedings. It encourage agency's based chance event adverse claim preemption.5 significant weight vital preventing injunctions frustrating situations ordained dealt considered temporary purposes 28 U.S.C. 1257. held 'particularly when postponing seriously erode requiring heard Board, courts,' further, 'The truth authorizing injunction, frequently disputes, effectively dispose petitioner's render entirely illusory his hearing Board.' 550, 536, Sola Electric Co. Jefferson 317 173, 172, 165, patent licensee defended unpaid royalties attacking Sherman Act price-fixing stipulation license. having accepted license stipulation, estopped deny stipulation. reversed. presented 'whether doctrine estoppel invoked below so conflict Act's prohibition resolve though conclusion contrary court.' 175, 165. permitted thwart statutes States. said, 176, 165: 10 'It familiar statute set naught, benefits denied, common rules. controlled Erie Railroad Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 82 1188. followed i applied courts. inapplicable those areas judicial dominated sweep legal relations governed source statutes, rather law. When condemns act unlawful extent nature consequences condemnation, left determination, nevertheless questions, answers derived adopted. To policy, conflicting yield. Constitution, Art. VI, cl. 2; *'. substantive yield more here—where oust question—local purport preclude adjudication conclusively review. 12 then merits. Our discussion need extended, view squarely 438 A.F.L. C.I.O. facts showed 'labor dispute' meaning 152(9)6 certainly least arguable. Consequently, 'the controversy, lay powers 546—547, 534 535, 13 reversed remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 14 ordered. 15 Judgment remanded. Company added party complainant amended supplemental 10, making perpetual, also found 'that erection does involve Interstate Commerce. localized definition term can operation amounts Commerce.' respondents support proof purchased outside materials costing $147,099.67. meets direct inflow standards exercise jurisdiction. N.L.R.B.Ann.Rep. (1958). lack cases requirement Article III Constitution depends existence controversy. Diamond, Federal Jurisdiction Decide Moot Cases, U. Pa.L.Rev. 125 (1946); Note, 103 772 (1955). 160(b). advance Appeals. 2587: brief 22nd, 1961, seeking stated: "In case, will 1, completed ready occupancy. Appellants know desire one complainants, coming fall require approximately eight Without expect Trial same, again possibly get time." includes concerning terms, tenure conditions employment, association representation persons negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, arrange terms regardless disputants stand proximate relation employee.'

Category: 9