# Petition — Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_1682%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 436 U.S. 180 ## Text Supreme Court of the Gnited States OctToper TERM, 1976. Ne. eO~ ‘O09 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Petitioner, vs. SAN DIEGO DISTRICT COUNTY COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA H. WARREN SIEGEL Jones, HALL & ARKY { 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, California 91802 ’ LAWRENCE M. COHEN BuRTON L. REITER LEDERER, FOX AND GROVE 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Attorneys for Petitioner Guntnorp-Warren Printing Company. Chicago e Financial 66565 INDEX PAGE SE CED cb. ce et ukens sabe ewee6ecééuusesteni l Dt twee clade udecsekeuneess ‘eteeue anes 2 bone basse enebubwecen es 2 th ccptewkdbesseekheesece beveusee see 2 Gr ee EL on cee dtuedhbetebes sees 2 Reasons for Granting the Writ................... 4 A. The Decision Below Raises an Important Ques- tion Which Has Not Been, but Should Be, Ss GP Wee GAMER. cc ccncccocuccces ie 4 B. Review by This Court Is Warranted to Resolve a Substantial Conflict Among the States...... 6 C. The Court Below Has Misconstrued the Deci- f -& . aaa pe X SD on cncueeeedest o060n 666ee0060eeuNbaees 11 CEE cence cccccecsccesccccccceccccececeses Al AUTHORITIES CITED Cases Amalgamated Association of Street, Electrical Railway & Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 i - We enn ; Taggart v. Weinacker’s Inc., supra, 283 Ala. 171, and Hood v. Stafford (1964) 213 Tenn. 684, 694-695 [378 S. W. 2d 766, 771]. 9. We also note that while the instant case was pending in this court, the Supreme Court in Hudgens v. NLRB, supra, ........ _- ,»* overruled Amalgamated Food ag be Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. (1968) 391 U. S. a case upon which the Union relies for its +1 that its picketing was pro- tected by the First Amendment. In view of the fact that the parties have not had an adequate opportunity to brief or argue the effect of Hudgens upon the instant controversy, it would be particularly — for this court to render a decision on this question at this time. *44 U.S. L. Week 4281. the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7; * * * CALIFORNIA PENAL CODR § 602. Trespasses constituting misdemeanors; enumer- ation Every person who wilfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor: * * * (k) Posted lands. Entering any lands under cultiva- tion or enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or entering upon uncultivated or un- enclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are dis- ee A48 played at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering such lands without the written per- mission of the owner of such land, his agent or of the person in lawful possession, and (1) Refusing or failing to leave such lands immediately upon being requested by the owner of such land, his agent or by the person in lawful possession to leave such lands, or (2) Tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard, or notice forbidding trespass or hunting on such lands, or (3) Removing, injuring, unlocking, or tam- pering with any lock on any gate on or leading into such lands, or (4) Discharging any firearm. (1) Occupation. Entering and occupying real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner, his agent, or the person in lawful pos- session thereof. — --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_1682%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.