U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1961

Carpenters' District Council of Miami v. Boire

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 30, 1961

288 F.2d 454 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Joseph H. Kaplan, Miami, Fla., Kaplan, Ser & Abrams, Miami, Fla., for appellants., Winthrop A. Johns, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Marvin Roth, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Carpenters' District Council Of Miami, Florida And Vicinity v. Harold A. Boire (5th Cir. 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

On application of the Regional Director the District Court on June 17, 1960, entered an injunction pursuant to § 10 (i), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l), pending final adjudication of § 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (B) secondary boycott proceedings pending before the Board. On August 15, 1960 the Union appealed the order granting the injunction to this Court. On September 13, 1960, the parties by formal settlement stipulation, thereafter approved by the Board, agreed to the entry of a consent order restraining the charged violations and directing the posting of appro*455priate notices. On the entry of that agreed consent order, the court injunction had fulfilled its function. The Board in the language of the injunction had now made “final disposition of the matters * * * pending before the * * * Board.” That proceeding and the appeal therefrom had become moot. Nothing done in the related case of N. L. R. B. v. Carpenters’ District Council of Miami, et al., 5 Cir., 1961, 288 F.2d 455 seeking enforcement by this Court under § 10(e), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e), of the Board’s consent order, was of any significance. If anything it only made more so that which was already moot.

Appeal dismissed as moot.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.