In Re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we cannot believe the norris-laguardia act was to superseded , sub silentio”
59 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 25 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (deb, 2015-07-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Bankr. D. Del. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we cannot believe the norris-laguardia act was to superseded , sub silentio
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Drywall Tapers & Pointers of Greater New York, Local Union 1974 of I.U.P.A.T., AFL-CIO v. Nastasi & Associates Inc.
2d Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Although Nastasi cites our decision in In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297, 298 (2d Cir.1981), and several other decisions in which courts have referred to the NLA anti-injunction prohibitions as pertaining to the district court’s “jurisdiction,” see, e.g., Triangle Construction and Maintenance Corp. v. Our Virgin Islands Labor Union, 425 F.3d 938, 942, 947 (11th Cir.2005); Ozark Air Lines, Inc. v. National Mediation Board, 797 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir.1986), the Supreme Court has recently cautioned that use of the term “jurisdictional,” even in the High Court’s own opinions, does not alway…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re McGregor
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 922 F.2d 984, 989 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied sub nom., Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l v. Shugrue, 502 U.S. 808 , 112 S.Ct. 50 , 116 L.Ed.2d 28 (1991); In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297, 299 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shugrue v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)
S.D.N.Y. · 1992 · confidence medium
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 923 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1991), aff'g 121 B.R. 428 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297, 299 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982); Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Bohack Corp., 541 F.2d 312, 318 (2d Cir.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shugrue v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n (In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)
2d Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
First, the automatic stay “provides the debtor with ‘a breathing spell from his creditors.’ ” Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61 , 64 (2 Cir.1986) (quoting legislative history); In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297, 299 (2 Cir.1981) (same), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MCorp Financial, Inc. v. Board of Governors Federal Reserve System of the United States
5th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
In In Re Crowe & Associates, Inc., 713 F.2d 211 , 214-16 (6th Cir.1983), the Sixth Circuit concluded that the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Reform Act was silent as to the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and this silence was “self-evident proof that Congress never intended to supersede or transcend [the Norris-La-Guardia Act], since we cannot believe that the Norris-LaGuardia Act was to be superseded sub silentio.” Id. at 215, quoting In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297, 300 (2d Cir.1981); see also Briggs Transportation Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marine Transport Lines, Inc., Etc. v. The International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, Etc., Delta Steamship Lines, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, a Labor Organization
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Crowe, 713 F.2d at 213 (employer failed to make payments required under collective bargaining agreement); In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d at 299 (same). 2 14 Indeed a dispute is no less a controversy concerning a term of employment because it "may be resolved or determined on its merits by reference to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement," United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America v. General Electric Co., 233 F.2d 85, 90-91 (1st Cir.1956), aff'd on other grounds, 353 U.S. 547 , 77 S.Ct. 921 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1957); W.L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marine Transport Lines, Inc. v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Crowe, 713 F.2d at 213 (employer failed to make payments required under collective bargaining agreement); In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d at 299 (same). 2 Indeed a dispute is no less a controversy concerning a terna of employment because it “may be resolved or determined on its merits by reference to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement,” United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America v. General Electric Co., 233 F.2d 85, 90-91 (1st Cir.1956), aff'd on other grounds, 353 U.S. 547 , 77 S.Ct. 921 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1957); W.L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Briggs Transportation Company v. International Brotherhood Of Teamsters
8th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Crowe & Associates, Inc. v. Bricklayers & Masons Union Local No. 2, 713 F.2d 211, 214-215 (6th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Petrusch v. Teamsters Local 317, 667 F.2d 297, 299-300 (2d Cir.1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Briggs Transportation Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
8th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Crowe & Associates, Inc. v. Bricklayers & Masons Union Local No. 2, 713 F.2d 211, 214-215 (6th Cir.1983) (per cu riam); Petrusch v. Teamsters Local 317, 667 F.2d 297, 299-300 (2d Cir.1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982).
examined Cited as authority (rule) In The Matter Of Crowe & Associates, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
6th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, p. 5787.) Accord Petrusch, 667 F.2d at 299-300.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Crowe & Associates, Inc. v. Bricklayers & Masons Union Local No. 2 (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
6th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
News 1978, p. 5787.) Accord Petrusch, 667 F.2d at 299-300.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Tom Powell & Son, Inc. (2×)
Bankr. W.D. Mo. · 1982 · confidence medium
The court, after noting that it had struck down a similar injunction in a Chapter X proceeding thirty years earlier, found that payments of fringe benefits are “. .. part of the terms and conditions of employment”, and, as such, fit “... squarely into the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s definition of a labor dispute ...” Id. at 299.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crowe & Assoc., Inc. v. Bricklayers and Masons Union Local No. 2 of Detroit, Michigan
E.D. Mich. · 1982 · confidence medium
The court concluded: “Such omissions are to us self-evident proof that Congress never intended to supersede or transcend it, since we cannot believe the Norris-LaGuardia Act was to be superseded, sub silentio.” Id. at 300.
discussed Cited "see" Elsinore Shore Associates v. Local 54, Hotel Employees And Restaurant Employees International Union
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 (2d Cir.1981) (automatic stay provision of the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act did not supercede the Norris-LaGuardia Act), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982); In re Crowe & Associates, Inc., 713 F.2d 211 (6th Cir.1983) (same); Briggs Transp.
discussed Cited "see" Elsinore Shore Associates v. Local 54, Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union
3rd Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 (2d Cir.1981) (automatic stay provision of the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act did not supercede the Norris-LaGuardia Act), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982); In re Crowe & Associates, Inc., 713 F.2d 211 (6th Cir.1983) (same); Briggs Transp.
discussed Cited "see" Elsinore Shore Associates v. Local 54, Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union (In Re Elsinore Shore Associates)
Bankr. D.N.J. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982); Crowe & Associates, Inc. v. Bricklayers and Masons Union Local 2 of Detroit, Michigan, 20 B.R. 225 (E.D.Mich.1982), aff'd., 713 F.2d 211 (6th Cir.1983); In re Warren-Ehret-Linck Company, 52 B.R. 47 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1985); In re Sterling Mining Company, Inc., 21 B.R. 66 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Va.1982).
discussed Cited "see" In Re St. Croix Hotel Corp.
Bankr. D.V.I. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Petrusch v. Teamsters, 667 F.2d 297 (2nd Cir. 1981) (bankruptcy judge can not enjoin labor picketing of a Chapter 13 debtor’s business as Norris — La Guardia Act expressly prohibits such injunctions).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." DRYWALL TAPERS AND POINTERS OF GREATER NEW YORK, LOCAL UNION 1974 OF v. NASTASI & ASSOCIATES INC.
2d Cir. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 91 v. United Technologies Corp., 230 F.3d 569 , 575, 579-82 (2d Cir.2000) (discussing NLA limitations on a specific injunction as a matter distinct from the district court's subject matter jurisdiction). 22 Although Nastasi cites our decision in In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 , 298 (2d Cir. 1981), and several other decisions in which courts have referred to the NLA anti-injunction prohibitions as pertaining to the district court's "jurisdiction," see, e.g., Triangle Construction and Maintenance Corp. v. Our Virgin Islands Labor Union, 425 F.3d 938,…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Solange Landau v. Toni Vallen, Haas Securities Corp., Eugene K. Laff, Stanley Aslanian, Jr., Mark Burgess, L.F. Rothschild & Co., Inc., Robert Schoenthal, Mathew R. Deane, Francois Mayer, Robert R. Errico, Andrew Berger, Joel Miller, Kuhns Brothers, Laidlaw, Inc., F/k/a Laidlaw Adams & Peck, Inc., Walter Baur, Henry Lorin, Henlor Capital, Ltd., Joelle Harris A/K/A Mrs. Joelle Lorin, Enn Kunnapas, Linda Kunnapas, Maureen Steffenson, Dr. Irwin Zandman, Capital Shares, Inc., Lawrence C. Caito, H. Clinton Pollack, Frank Shannon, Yarrimup (A Corporation), J.T. Moran & Co., Inc., John T. Moran, Paul R. Miano, Jacques M. De Stadelhofen, Legal Assistant Corporation and John Does I-Ix, Frank Shannon, Lf Rothschild & Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Counterclaimant v. Henry Lorin, Frank Shannon & Enn Hants Kunnapas, Third-Party Defendants-Counterclaimants
2d Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Straton, 283 U.S. at 321-22 , 51 S.Ct. at 465 ; Cameron, 231 U.S. at 717 , 34 S.Ct. at 244 ; Acme Harvester, 222 U.S. at 307-08 , 32 S.Ct. at 96 ; Clarkson, 716 F.2d at 129 ; see also In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 , 299-300 (2d Cir.1981) ("[c]oncern for the preservation of estates in bankruptcy and prevention from interference in their status quo has had a long history and effective remedies bottomed on the concept of custodia legis "), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Landau v. Vallen
2d Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Straton, 283 U.S. at 321-22 , 51 S.Ct. at 465 ; Cameron, 231 U.S. at 717 , 34 S.Ct. at 244 ; Acme Harvester, 222 U.S. at 307-08 , 32 S.Ct. at 96 ; Clarkson, 716 F.2d at 129 ; see also In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297, 300 (2d Cir.1981) (“[cjoncern for the preservation of estates in bankruptcy and prevention from interference in their status quo has had a long history and effective remedies bottomed on the concept of custodia legis”), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297, 299 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 974 , 102 S.Ct. 2238 , 72 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981); In re Crowe & Assoc., Inc., 713 F.2d 211, 214 (6th Cir.1983). 18.Section 9 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 109 , applies “to all ‘labor disputes’ in which a federal court can issue an injunction.” New York Tel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re William O. Petrusch, Jr., D/B/A B & L Distribution Center, Debtor. William O. Petrusch, Jr., D/B/A B & L Distribution Center
v.
Teamsters Local 317, Syracuse, Ny & New York State Teamsters Council, Health& Hospital Fund/pension Retirement Fund
599.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 15, 1981.
667 F.2d 297
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

667 F.2d 297

109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2197, 92 Lab.Cas. P 13,169,
5 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 909, 8 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 616,
Bankr. L. Rep. P 68,475

In re William O. PETRUSCH, Jr., d/b/a B & L Distribution
Center, Debtor.
William O. PETRUSCH, Jr., d/b/a B & L Distribution Center,
Respondent-Appellant,
v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 317, SYRACUSE, NY & New York State Teamsters
Council, Health& Hospital Fund/Pension Retirement
Fund, Petitioners-Appellees.

No. 599, Docket 81-5055.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 13, 1981.
Decided Dec. 15, 1981.

Samuel J. Costa, Syracuse, N. Y. (Grass, Balanoff, Costa & Whitelaw, Syracuse, N. Y., on the brief), for appellant.

James R. LaVaute, Syracuse, N. Y. (Blitman & King, Syracuse, N. Y., on the brief), for appellee.

Before TIMBERS and KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District Judge.[*]

PER CURIAM:

[*~297]1

Petrusch, the debtor in a Chapter 13 proceeding, (11 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. (Supp. III 1979)), appeals an order of the District Court for the Northern District of New York staying, pending appeal to this Court, an injunction by a Bankruptcy Judge restraining appellee labor union, Teamsters Local 317, from picketing his place of business in a labor dispute. The District Judge, in a reasoned opinion, held that the Bankruptcy Court was without subject matter jurisdiction because the Norris-La Guardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., expressly prohibited such injunctions by any United States court. We agree, and affirm.

2

This appeal therefore, presents the issue whether the Automatic Stay section of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (11 U.S.C. § 362), upon which the Bankruptcy Judge relied, supersedes pro tanto the historic Norris-La Guardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Section 4 of that Act (29 U.S.C. § 104) provides:

3

"No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute (as these terms are herein defined) from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts:(e) Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence;

4

(f) Assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute; ...."

[*~298]5

Thirty years ago almost to the day this Court struck down a similar injunction issued in a Chapter X proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (11 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. (1976)), involving a threatened union strike of the Third Avenue Transit Corporation which served a million and a half passengers a day. Citing Mr. Justice Frankfurter's concurring opinion in United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 313-14, 320 n.6 (1947), we held: "Both the language and the purposes of that statute (Norris-La Guardia Act) ... forbids such a conclusion. The well established power of the reorganization court to issue orders necessary to conserve the property in its custody must be exercised within the scope of a jurisdiction which is limited by the broad and explicit language of the Norris-La Guardia Act." In Re Third Ave. Transit Corp., et al., Lehman, et al. v. Quill, et al., 192 F.2d 971, 973 (2nd Cir. 1951).

6

More recently, in Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. The Bohack Corporation, 541 F.2d 312 (2nd Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 825 (1978), also decided under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, we issued the extraordinary writ of mandamus to the District Judge to vacate his order restraining the union from engaging in actions protected by Section 4 of the Norris-La Guardia Act, saying that "the district court did not have jurisdiction, ... to enjoin the picketing or other lawful union activity, and hence (we) will grant the writ of mandamus to the district court to dissolve any such order." Id. at 318.

7

Petrusch contended before the district court that there was no labor dispute between him and the union but only an attempt by the union to collect a pre-petition debt for the Teamsters' funds. The Court correctly disposed of this contention by holding that Petrusch was obliged, by the terms of the collective bargaining agreements between the parties, to make fringe benefit payments to the Teamsters' Health and Hospital Fund and their Pension and Retirement Fund. Because such obligation is part of the terms and conditions of employment, it fits squarely into the Norris-La Guardia Act's definition of a labor dispute. 29 U.S.C. § 113(c), defining a labor dispute, includes "any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, ... regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee."

[*~299]8

The "Automatic Stay" in all voluntary and involuntary bankruptcies as directed in Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act attaches upon the filing of the petition and applies to all entities included in 8 subdivisions of activities relating to diverse legal and administrative matters. In § 362(b), 8 situations are delineated where the stay does not attach. Labor disputes or picketing are not mentioned in either subsection.

9

The purpose of the Automatic Stay is explained in the House Report for the Bankruptcy Reform Act, H.R.Rep. 95-595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 340, reprinted in (1978) U.S.Cong. and Ad.News 6135, 6296-97:

10

"The automatic stay is one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy laws. It gives the debtor a breathing spell from his creditors. It stops all collection efforts, all harassment, and all foreclosure actions. It permits the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan, or simply to be relieved of the financial pressures that drove him into bankruptcy.

11

The automatic stay also provides creditor protection. Without it, certain creditors would be able to pursue their own remedies against the debtor's property. Those who acted first would obtain payment of the claims in preference to and to the detriment of other creditors...."

[*~300]12

Nowhere in the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R.Rep.No.95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 1977; Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, Sen.Rep.No.989, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 54 reprinted in (1978) U.S.Cong. and Ad.News 5788, 5840-41) or in the Report of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States (H.R.Doc.No.93-137, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1973) is any reference made to the Norris-La Guardia Act. Such omissions are to us self-evident proof that Congress never intended to supersede or transcend it, since we cannot believe the Norris-La Guardia Act was to superseded, sub silentio.

[*~299]13

Concern for the preservation of estates in bankruptcy and prevention from interference in their status quo has had a long history and effective remedies bottomed on the concept of custodia legis, but with exceptions and limitations. "It is as true of the present law as it was of that of 1867, that the filing of the petition is a caveat to all the world, and in effect an attachment and injunction,...." Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U.S. 1, 14 (1902); cf., Ex Parte Baldwin, et al., 291 U.S. 610, 615 (1934). Congress, pursuant to its constitutional powers, carved out an exception in labor disputes by withdrawing jurisdiction of all United States courts. Art. III, Sec. 1.

*

Honorable Thomas F. Murphy, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation