Vanderbilt Law Review

Article Title

Recent Cases

First Page



Injunctions--Contempt Power--Citation Proper Against Nonparty Who Violates Court Order in School Desegregation Case

Whether an injunction or other order binds one not a party to the underlying suit or proceeding so that he may be held in contempt for violation is a question that always has troubled the courts. Some early cases purported to announce a sweeping and apparently absolute rule--that an injunction or other order does not bind nonparties. The principle underlying this rule is that due process forbids a court to adjudicate the legal rights and relationships of a person who has not had the opportunity to be heard before the court. Further, a court arguably usurps the role of the legislature if it assumes to prescribe a rule of conduct for persons not properly before it.'


Public Welfare--Federal Court Jurisdiction--Retroactive Award of Welfare Payments Is Inappropriate Exercise of District Court's General Equity Jurisdiction and Violates Eleventh Amendment

Plaintiff welfare recipients' brought a class action seeking to enjoin enforcement of a New York welfare statute, that provided for payment of higher benefits to welfare recipients residing in New York City than to those residing in the surrounding suburban area, on the ground that the statute and the regulations promulgated there under violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and provisions of the Social Security Act. Pursuant to a favorable judgment on the merits,, plaintiffs submitted a proposed order requiring defendants to award retroactively to all class members the payments that had been denied them under the contested statute. Defendants objected to the proposal,arguing that the court, in balancing the equities, should give special consideration to the heavy administrative costs involved in carrying out the proposed order and to the additional strains it would impose upon an already overburdened administrative mechanism.


Taxation--Valuation--Income-Producing Lease of Undeveloped Airspace Is Real Property Interest That May Be Assessed Separately for Taxation

Petitioners purchased a lot in Baltimore City that was subject to a lease of the airspace superjacent to it. The lessee, owner of a multistory office building situated on a lot adjacent to petitioner's, had obtained the lease to guarantee access to light and air. The city board of assessments assessed the value of the air rights lease for taxation purposes on the ground that income-producing air rights constitute a separate classification of taxable real property. Petitioners contended that under the state constitution air rights are not taxable as a class or subclass of real property and asserted that because fee owners who utilize their own air rights are not assessed and taxed separately on those air rights,owners who lease their air rights should not be assessed separately either.' The local Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals vacated the assessment, but the Maryland Tax Court reversed and reinstated the assessment. On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, held,affirmed. An income-producing lease of undeveloped airspace is an interest in real property that can be assessed separately for the purpose of taxation.


Workmen's Compensation-Recreational Injuries-Injuries to Resident Employee During Off-Duty, Off-Premises Activity Held Compensable as Within the Course of Employment

Claimant, a resident-employee at a summer camp, sought work-men's compensation benefits for injuries received while engaged in off-duty recreational activities away from his employer's premises. Claim-ant contended that the injury occurred as a result of activity known and permitted by the employer and that it was compensable because the activity engaged in was a reasonable incident of his employment. The employer asserted that the injury occurred on the employee's own time,away from the employer's premises, and was not related to the employment. The New York Workmen's Compensation Board awarded compensation. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the claim, holding that there was no connection between the injury and any risk incident to the employment. On appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, held, reversed and award reinstated.