Jurisdictional Statement — Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad

ma) =) 57. YY. ; GY bey ke os

SUPREME COURT. | ue a ) 8} | DEC 20 1667

a = Bee

ecm Fo SES

OCTOBER TERM; oo ra

Roserr N. isan cuit suka fox the

Seventh Judicial‘ Circuit of. Arkansas, and W. F.

Denman, Jz., Prosecuting Attorney for the Eighth —

Judicial Circuit - Arkansas ual ‘ A ippellonts

4 v.-

Cu1caco, lets: IsLawb AND Paciric Rartioap ComPARy,

Tne Kansas Crry Sournern Ramway Company,

Missovat Pactrro Ramaoan Compaxy, St. Louis-San

_ Franorgco Rarway Compayy, St. Louis SourHwsst- .

ERN RarLway Company, ‘and THe Texas and Pactric

, Baruway | CoMPANY ........ eSomoaieantbinsnall ei eat :

a

| ON APPEAL FROM

: THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

_ WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ©

JORISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

_ Jor Pons, ATTORNEY Garena

. i Cuter Assistant ATTORNEY Gumpnat.

p Justice Building

» Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

iho for the Appellants

9 ; ; Page

Opinion Below me 2

Jurisdiction . | aie 3 — |

Statutes Involved aa | 3

Question Presented: | 3

Statement —— pine \e

The Questions Are Substantial oo i 4

CASE CITATIONS

Chicago, R. 1. é Pac. R.R. v. Hardin, 239 F. Supp. 1

(W.D. Ark. 1965), rev. sub nom., Brotherhood |

of Locomotwe. Engineers v. Chicago, R. I. -

Pac. R.R., 382 U.S. 423 (1966) -_' ©

Florida Lime Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 362 US. 73

(1960) . , 3

Missouri Pac. R.R .v. Norwood, 283 U.S. 249 T1931) ;

13 F. Supp. 24 (W.D. Ark. (1933), affmd., aed

U.S. 600 (1933) 3

Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 395°U.S. 89 (1935),..._ 3

.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER —— 1967

Roszrt N. Hazpiy, Prosecuting Attorney for the

Seventh Judicial Circuit of Arkansas, and W. F.

Denman, Jz., Prosecuting Attorney for the Eighth

Judicial Circuit of Arkansas Appellants —

v.

Curcaco, Rock Istanp anv Paciric RariroaD ComPANyY, *

THe Kansas Crty Sovurnern RPattway Company,

Missouri Paciric Rartzoap Company, Sr. Lovuis-San_

Francisco Raruway Company, Sr. Lovrs SouTHWEST-

ERN Raruway Company, and Tue Texas anv Pactric

‘Ratzway Company : . Appellees

s

; ON APPEAL FROM

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

a

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

2

Appellants appeal from the judgment of the United

States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas

entered October 2, 1967, enjoining enforcement of. Axx.

Strat. Ann. §§ 73-720 through 722, 73-726 through 729 (Repl.

1957), and submit this Statement to show that the Supreme

Court of the United States has jurisdiction of the appeal

and that a substantial federdl question is presented, “»

a."

ee nee OPINION BELOW -

“The decree and memorandum opinion of the. District

: Court for the Western ‘District of Arkansas, Hot Springs

- Division, are not yet. reported. Copies are set forth in’

Appendix A to the J urisdictional Statement of the Brothers

- hood of. Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, et al., previ-

_ ously filed i in ‘connection with a companion iiwen

a

JURISDICTION

: This action was brought under 28 U.S:0. §§ 1331, 1332,

_ 2201,:2202 and 2282 through 2284 (1964) to invalidate stat-

‘utes of the State of Arkansas regulating thé composition of

certain railroad crews. Grqunds alleged for such challenge

. included various provisions of the United States Constitu-

tion; a three-judge court: was empanelled. On March 5,

1965, the court granted summary judgment for ‘the ‘plain-

tiffs ; judgment enjoining the enforceinent of the state stat-

utes was filed*on March 8, 1965. ‘Chicago, R. I, & Pac. R. R.

Y¥. v. Hardin, 239 F'. Supp. 1. (W. D. Ark. 1965).

The District Court decision was reversed by the Su- |

preme Court of. the United States. Brotherhood of Loco’

motive Engineers v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. R. R., 382 U.S.

423 (1966). The case was remanded to the lower court ‘‘for

- consideration of the constitutional, issues left undecided by

its previous judgment.” ”? 382 U.S. at 438.

' After trial and argument on the remaining issues, the

District. Court again enjoined the enforcement of. the state

statutes on October 2, 1967. The final decree ‘held the chal-

lenged legislation unconstitutional ‘‘as — the Due

Process Clause of the 14th Amendment ... and as being an."

unconstitutional burden on interstate commeree —

by the Commerce Clause....’’ +

‘Notice of appeal was filea by the appellants and the

- intervenors on October 31, 1967, im the Upited States Dis-*

- trict — for the Western Division of Arkansas,

“rn

6 aa 8 ace

J urisdiction of the Supreme Court te review this desi-

sion by direct appeal is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1253

_ (1964). The following cases sustain such jurisdiction:

Florida Lime Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen, 362 U. 8. 73

(1960); Spielman Motor SalesCo. v. Dodge, 259 U. 8S. 89

(1935). See also Brotherhood of Locomotive Engwmeers v.

Chicago, R. I. & Pac. R. R., 382 U. 8. 423 (1966) ; Missouri

Pac, R. R. v. lic 983-U. ‘8. 249 (1981). |

\ STATUTES INVOLVED - 3

Axx. Star. Ann. §§ 73-790 through 722, 73-726 through. ~

729 (Repl. 1957), are’set forth as Appendix B to the Juris-

dictional Statement of: the Brotherhoqd of Locomotive

Firemen and Enginemen, et al:, previously filed in con- .

nection with a ——— appeal. |

QUESTION PRESENTED -

_ “In view of five previous validating decisions of the.

Supreme Court, have conditions.of Arkansas railroading 80

changed that the United States Constitution now deprives

_ the State of Arkansas of power to enforce aspects of its

railtoad safety laws which regulate the employment com-

plement of certain freight and switch train crews —

in n the state?

3

4

STATEMENT

The State of Arkansas, on behalf of the original de-

fendants in this case, adopts and concurs with ‘the State-

ment. presented by appellants Brotherhood of Locomotive

Firemen and Enginémen, et al., in their previously filed

Jurisdictional Statement in connection with’a ——

— -

THE QUESTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIAL

The State of Arkansas, on behalf of the original de-

fendants in this case, adopts and concurs with the reasons

~ for plenary consideration of this appeal given by appel-

+ lants Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and. Haginemen, 7

et al., in their previously filed J urisdictional Statement ' in

:: connection with a. compgnion appeal.

In addition, the safety’ ‘of Arkansas. seavelirn and Ar--

’ kansas woskmen is of a concern to the officials of

this jurisdiction. :

While the statutes in question were passed long ago,

they were reaffirmed by the people of the state in 1958.

Thus by popular vote the. people of Arkansas expressed

- the legislative judgment that the full crew laws are needed

now. Hazards created by the recent dramatic expansion of _

commerce in our state furnish ample justification for such -

judgment.

Appellants believe that the scien presented by this

vom is substantial and of public importance.

*

~~~ Respectfully submitted, __-

le Joz Purcett, ATTORNEY Guwenan

- “aor Lesuiz Evirrs,

| Curer Assistant ATTORNEY Geuenat.

+ Justice e Building

: _ - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Attorneys for the Appellants ©