# Coutlakis v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 24, 1954 · 160 Tex. Crim. 249

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773491

## Case

- **Full name:** Emanuel Coutlakis v. State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 24, 1954
- **Citations:** 160 Tex. Crim. 249; 268 S.W.2d 192; 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1907
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Morrison
- **Judges:** Woodley, Morrison, Graves
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9773491

## Opinion text

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
It is natural inclination of state courts of last resort to uphold the legality of the acts of their legislatures, primarily because the members thereof are ardent propendente of the rights of the states. However, by the same token as we require inferior courts to accede to our views of the law, we should be ready to accept the holdings of the court to which our cases may be appealed. An accused should not be required to appeal to a superior court when that superior court has already spoken.
I say that our superior court has spoken and refer to the portion of the opinion in Hill v. Florida quoted in the majority opinion wherein the court discusses Section 6 of the Florida act.
Said section requires a labor organization operating in Florida to annually pay one dollar and report to the secretary of state of that state the following information, and nothing more:
1. The name of the organization.
2. The location of its office, and
3. The names and addresses of its officers.
The Texas act requires a labor union organizer before soliciting members for his organization to mail or present to the secretary of state an application showing:
1. His name,
2. His union affiliations, and
3. A description of his credentials.
In discussing Section 6 of the Florida act, the court said, “It is the sanction here imposed, and not the duty to report, *257 which brings about a situation inconsistent with the federally protected process of collective bargaining.”
The word “sanction” has been judicially defined as “means of enforcement.” See M.K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Huff, 81 S.W. 525 , opinion by Chief Justice Gaines.
The court then continues with this statement, “This is true because if the union or its representatives acted as bargaining agents without making the required reports, presumably they would be liable for contempt of court and to conviction under the misdemeanor section of the act. Such an obstacle to collective bargaining cannot be created consistently with the Federal Act.”
In the case before us one of the contingencies which the Supreme Court said presumably could happen has occurred, and the holding of my brethren is in direct conflict with the decision in Hill v. Florida.
As I view the recent holding of the Supreme Court in Garner v. Teamsters C. & H. Union, 98 L. Ed. (Adv. p-). there can be no question but that the Federal Act will be held to have preempted the field covered by Section 5 of Article 515a.
I respectfully enter my dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773491. Public record. Not legal advice.