Document: 377 U.S. 408 84 S.Ct. 1579 12 L.Ed.2d 409 James P. DONOVAN et al., Petitioners,v.CITY OF DALLAS al. No. 264. Argued April 22, 1964. Decided June 8, Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, See 85 14. Donovan, Dallas, Tex., for petitioners. Mr. H. Kucera, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question presented here is whether a state court can validly enjoin person from prosecuting an action in personam district or appellate United States which has jurisdiction both parties and subject matter. 2 City Texas, owns Love Field, municipal airport. In 1961, 46 Dallas citizens who owned had interests property near airport filed class suit Texas to restrain city building additional runway issuing selling bonds that purpose. complaint alleged many damages would occur plaintiffs if should be built charged issuance illegal any reasons. case was tried, summary judgment given city, Court Civil Appeals affirmed,1 Supreme denied review, we certiorari.2 Later 120 citizens, including 27 earlier action, another District Northern seeking similar relief. A number new defendants were named addition all being with taking part plans construct issue sell violation federal laws. sought injunction against construction runway, bonds, payment on already issued, circulation false information about bond issue, as well declaration void. None approved, therefore under law none could so long there pending litigation challenging their validity.3 motion dismiss answer court. But at same time applied writ prohibition bar there. relief, holding it without power litigants defense res judicata relied raised adjudicated Court.4 On petition mandamus took different view, however, held duty prohibit further case, stated fail perform this duty.5 promptly issued prohibiting prosecution enjoined them 'individually * filing instituting litigation, suits actions court, purpose contest validity revenue manner interfering proposed *.' unreported dismissed Counsel one petitioners here, excepted dismissal then appeal Fifth Circuit. thereupon cited Donovan other claimants contempt convicted 87 finding they violated its 'valid order.'6 sentenced serve 20 days jail, 86 fined $200 each, aggregate $17,200. These penalties imposed upon each contemner having either (1) joined party plaintiff case; (2) failed request contested (3) taken exceptions preparatory appealing Appeals; (4) separate Federal original federal-court suit. After fines been paid he served his jail sentence,7 counsel appeared behalf himself those moved Appeals. His made duress unless 'the Attorney Defendant Chief Judge have threatened these Appellants resulting imprisonment.' appeal.8 3 We declined grant certiorari review Court's before brought by court's coercive judgment, but did State directing courts also granted Appeals' conviction contempt. 375 878, 146, 11 110. think right first reverse upsetting vacate later Appeals, rested mistaken belief 'valid.' 4 Early history our country general rule established not interfere try other's proceedings.9 That continued substantially unchanged time. An exception cases where custody property, is, proceedings rem quasi rem. such said exclusive proceed. Princess Lida v. Thompson, 305 456, 465—468, 59 275, 280, 281, 83 L.Ed. 285. 'where strictly personam, concurrent jurisdiction, may proceed least until obtained set up other.' Id., 466, 280. Kline Burke Construction Co., 260 226, 43 79, 67 226. It full hearing appropriate justify state-court favor barred issues second suit, express no opinion. chose file They do this, theirs reason congressional enactments passed pursuant policy. And plea good decide. While Congress seen fit authorize some special circumstances,10 way relaxed old well-established judicially declared rule11 are completely like here. does matter addressed rather than itself. For heart that: 5 '* prosecute it, once attached, cannot arrested away fact, therefore, only evasion difficulties necessary result attempt exercise over litigant independent forum.'12 6 Petitioners properly decide resented, dismissal. punished it. because threats punish more so. legal effect coerced now us, propriety punishment pursuing remedies is. State. take otherwise.13 7 argued nevertheless upheld premise petitioners' obey restraining order valid invalid. consider pass question, acted assumption guilty 'willful disobedience order.' 368 S.W.2d 244. (Emphasis supplied.) Since hold valid, invalid, disobeying invalid order. Whether known know. However, since neither considered nor decided leave consideration remand. 8 reversed, vacated, remanded inconsistent 9 ordered. 10 Judgment directions. HARLAN, whom CLARK STEWART join, dissenting. outset opinion, much narrower one: May resident suitors vexatious, duplicative thwarting rendered them? Given finding, amply supported record challenged Court, controversy 'has reached point vexatious harassing litigation,' 365 919, 927,1 I ensuing adjudication perfectly proper. I. 13 equity persons conducting forum doubted now. Cole Cunningham, 133 107, 111, 269, 270, 33 538, affirmed 'a decree supreme judicial Massachusetts, commonwealth attachment New York, evading laws domicile stated: 14 'The English chancery within territorial limits doing anything abroad thing forbidden conveyance act, pais, institution foreign settled.' 116—117, 272. 15 quoted approval following passage Story's Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. II (10th ed. 1870), 89: 'It whenever authority act personally respect country, ends justice require, view omit steps justice, country.'2 119, 273. Simon Southern R. 236 115, 35 255, 492. 16 This 1941, expressly recognized precisely what Baltimore & Ohio Co. Kepner, 314 44, 51—52, 62 6, 9, 28, although denying said: 17 real contention petitioner despite admitted venue respondent acting inequitable maintaining distant when convenient suitable respondent's doorstep. Under circumstances asserts power, abstractly speaking, prevent inequity. Such exist.' (Footnote omitted; emphasis 18 Frankfurther, dissenting disagreement particular basis refusal give principle, see infra, p. 418, observed 'not deny historic misuse enjoining resort oppressive suits,' id., 55, 11,3 decision 'give currency discredited notion lack courts,' 56, 11. 19 Apart statements majority opinions, easoning clearly implies contrary injured employee railroad, Eastern York. accident out injuries arose occurred Ohio, resided. Jurisdiction based provision Employers' Liability Act permitted bring defendant business.4 railroad proceeding Kepner continuing open large cost itself needless. Deciding solely provisions gave privilege legislative override, injunction. Quite evidently, meaningless presumed absence statute enjoin. Nor even obvious inference. express: 'As admittedly possessed (to improper jurisdiction) enactment Section (of F.E.L.A.) 53, 10. Blanchard Commonwealth Oil Cir., 294 F.2d 834, 841. light foregoing, impropriety present case. II. 21 relies deals with, negatives, involved concerned vaxatious litigation. 22 McKim Voorhies, Cranch 279, 342 (ante, 412, note 9), stay acquired which, element harassment all. Similarly, Diggs Wolcott, 179, 587 (cited ibid.), position reverse, commenced Riggs Johnson County, Wall. 166, 768 413, 11), resembled McKim, supra; preventing enforcing entered ever got hands two cites (ibid.) Riggs. Weber Lee 210, 212, 781; ex rel. Ill. Council Keokuk, 514, 517, 918. 23 230, 81, 226 412), held, courts, seeks personal cause precluded.' Dictum 285, quotes effect. th re discussion elsewhere. Moreover, opinions explain permitting injunctions protective actions—a ante, 412—on ground permit acquires 'effectively (to) vested *,' Lida, supra, 467, 281. Kline, 229, 81. reasoning fully applicable maintenance automatic nullifying decree. 24 three proposition immaterial, purposes runs 12. apposite. Peck Jenness, How. 612, 841, Diggs, 'was oust' 624. Central National Bank Stevens, 169 432, 403, 42 807, again private individuals giving final begun discussed; unmistakable implication directly 25 There dispute, weight authority, recent pronouncement takes comment assertion, 'had Congress' maintain very issue. event, statutory boundaries hardly regarded license conduct harassment.5 recognizes demonstrates tenable; cases, too, 26 short, today's rests confusion between distinct lines involving not. affirm. Atkinson 353 275 (Tex.Civ.App.). 370 939, 82 1587, 808. Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.Stat. Art. 1269j—5, § 3. Dixon, 925. Brown, 362 372 919. 240 habeas corpus Both relief week moot unreported. 878. See, e.g., M'Kim 342; 587. 28 U.S.C. 2283; 1651. 918; 194—196, 768; 342. How, 625, 807; cf. O.R. 54, n. 23, 10, 28. s.Ct. reach Act. 36 Stat. 291, amended, 45 56. law, mere prevented finance city's Tex.Civ.App., (370 808) review. As found '(a)n analysis Brown (the case) discloses litigated essentially Atkinson, prayer ultimate relief.' S.W.2d, 927. oral dismissing judge thing, stating: 'In my justiciable All case.' next sentence, Story doctrine, 'upon peculiar grounds constitutional law'; vice versa. Ibid. apparent support mind kind situation majority, will shown Part pp. 418—421, deal contexts. 89, notes 2—4. Many decisions equitable power. O'Haire Burns, Colo. 101 755, L.R.A., N.S., 267; Royal League Kavanagh, 233 175, N.E. 178; Oates Morningside College, 217 Iowa 1059, 252 N.W. 783, 91 A.L.R. 563; Pere Marquette Railway Slutz, 268 Mich. 388, 256 458; Wilser Wilser, 132 Minn. 167, 156 271. 'Under chapter States, residence defendant, arose, shall business commencing action. several States.' 5, 1910, illustrate, judgments available interference legitimate invocation jurisdiction. parallel development confused possibility abuse altogether traditional courts.

Category: 9