Language in the opinion suggested that jurisdiction to apply state law was preserved because the plaintiff sought damages rather than an injunction and that the case was distinguishable from the Garner case because there state law attempted to provide a preventive remedy paralleling the preventive remedy available under federal law, whereas 'here Congress has neither provided nor suggested any substitute for the traditional state court procedure for collecting damages for injuries caused by tortious conduct.' Some state and federal cases have relied on this distinction in holding that damages may be awarded under state law for conduct markedly different from that in the Laburnum case.
Relying on this same analysis, other courts in actions by employees against unions have refused to award damages under state law on the ground that the National Labor Relations Board was empowered to give substantially the same relief under federal law by a back pay order.
Still other courts have held that damages may be given under state law in cases involving violence, apparently singling it out as the critical factor distinguishing the Laburnum case from the Garner case. Under this analysis the reasons justifying jurisdiction to award damages would be substantially the same as those that justify state injunctive relief in cases of violence. It might seem self-evident, however, even in the absence of the Laburnum case, that if local interest in keeping public order is sufficient to preserve injunctions under state law, it is sufficient to preserve the less drastic remedy of damages.