Court Opinion

ID: 9420821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:56:04.68173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:27.125076
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom Mr. Justice Black concurs,
dissenting.
The question presented is the power of the state court to issue a temporary injunction in this kind of labor dispute. If petitioners had sought mandamus or another appropriate state writ directed against the judge who issued the temporary injunction, I should have no doubt that it would be a final judgment which we would review. See Bandini Co. v. Superior Court, 284 U. S. 8, 14. Cf. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 565. I see no difference of substance between that case and this. The mischief of temporary injunctions in labor controversies is well known. It is done when the interlocutory order is issued. The damage is often irreparable. The assertion by the state court of power to act in an interlocutory way is final. Whether it has that power may be determined without reference to any future proceedings which may be taken. Unless the rule of finality is to be *182purely mechanical, which to date it has not been (see Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 124), we should determine now whether the National Labor Relations Act permits a state court to interfere with a labor controversy in a way, which though interim in form, irretrievably alters the status of the dispute or in fact settles it.*

This “practical” rather than “technical” construction is as necessary here as it is in cases involving appeals from “final decisions” in the federal system. See Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 545-546.