Court Opinion

ID: 9422215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:01:40.914177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:27.297885
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
whom
Mr. Justice Clark joins, concurring in the judgment.
One of the important considerations that led to the enactment of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, *298limiting the jurisdiction of the District Courts to grant injunctions in labor controversies, was that such injunctions were granted, usually by way of temporary relief, on the basis of affidavits. I am of the view that the issues that arise in controversies like the present one are likewise more securely adjudicated upon a foundation of oral testimony rather than affidavits. At all events, I am dubious about a fixed rule, such as that which is apparently in effect in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, barring oral testimony — subject to the usual safeguards of cross-examination — in proceedings for a temporary injunction. I assume that oral testimony will be available in a proceeding to make the temporary injunction permanent.
In this understanding I concur in the judgment of the Court.