# Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 29, 1945 · 324 U.S. 9

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419580

## Case

- **Full name:** Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 29, 1945
- **Citations:** 324 U.S. 9; 15 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 882; 65 S. Ct. 478; 89 L. Ed. 661; 1945 U.S. LEXIS 2711
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stone
- **Judges:** Jackson, Stone, Roberts, Reed
- **Cited by:** 427 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419580

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that Rule 65(d) "is derived from the commonlaw doctrine that a decree of injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them in interest, in privity with them, represented by them or subject to their control" (internal quotation omitted)
- explaining that parties “may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original proceeding”
- explaining that the purpose of this rule is to keep parties from “nullifying] a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors”
- discussing successors and assigns and recognizing enjoinability “in appropriate *1365 circumstances” of “ ‘those to whom the business may have been transferred, whether as a means of evading the judgment or for other reasons’ ” (quoting Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U.…

## Opinion text

Mr. Chief Justice Stone,
dissenting,
with whom Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice, Reed concur.
An injunction is a continuing threat to those named as subject to it, of the pains of contempt proceedings if they disobey its provisions. The opinion of the Court recognizes that the present injunction running against the employer’s “successors and assigns” purports to include within its sweep some who are not subject to its command and is thus a threat to those over whom the Court has no authority. The opinion also admits that the persons who are bound by the present decree would be as effectively bound if the decree were to omit the words *17 “successors and assigns.” See Walling v. Reuter Co., 321 U. S. 671, 674-675 , and cases cited.
It has long been deemed to be an abuse of power for a federal court to enjoin practices in which a defendant has not engaged and which are unrelated to those which may be properly enjoined. See Labor Board v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426 , and cases cited. To me it seems no less a misuse of authority for a court, as well as for the Labor Board itself, to threaten those who are not subject to its command. This is the more so where the tendency of the threat is to inflict an unauthorized penalty on the employer by deterring third persons from dealing with him to acquire his property and business, in circumstances in which that may lawfully be done.
That there have been numerous cases before this Court where the Board’s order has not been challenged in this respect, is significant only as showing how extensive the abuse has become and how ready employers and the lower courts have been to acquiesce in threatened wrong, when the injury seemed not to be immediate. But these are not reasons for our acquiescence, when the question is brought to us for decision for the first time. It is no part of the function of the Board or of courts to make unwarranted threats against suitors or innocent third persons. Such misleading and unwarranted use of the phrase should be avoided, either by striking it from the decree or so qualifying it as to designate the class of “successors and assigns” to whom it may be lawfully applied. Cf. Southport Co. v. Labor Board, 315 U. S. 100, 107 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419580. Public record. Not legal advice.