▁stat ute ▁applied , ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁stat ute ▁in fr ing ed ▁the ▁Four teenth ▁Am end ment ▁to ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁Constitution . ▁The ▁District ▁Court ▁noted ▁that ▁a ▁state ▁court ▁might ▁find ▁that ▁the ▁state ▁law ▁did ▁not ▁apply ▁to ▁the ▁pla int iffs , ▁and ▁ab st ained ▁from ▁hearing ▁the ▁case ▁purs u ant ▁to ▁the ▁P ull man ▁ab st ention ▁doctrine . ▁ ▁The ▁pla int iffs ▁noted ▁that ▁a ▁case ▁ref ining ▁P ull man ▁called ▁Government ▁and ▁Civil ▁Emp loy ees ▁Organ izing ▁Committee , ▁C IO ▁v . ▁W inds or , ▁ 3 5 3 ▁U . S . ▁ 3 6 4 ▁( 1 9 5 7 ) ▁had ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁judgment ▁of ▁the ▁state ▁court ▁was ▁meaning less ▁unless ▁the ▁state ▁court ▁was ▁aware ▁that ▁constitution al ▁questions ▁had ▁also ▁been ▁raised ▁as ▁to ▁the ▁valid ity ▁of ▁the ▁stat ute . ▁The ▁pla int iffs ▁therefore ▁brought ▁both ▁claims ▁in ▁the ▁Louisiana ▁state ▁court ▁( as ▁they ▁believed ▁P ull man ▁and ▁W inds or ▁required ). ▁The ▁state ▁court ▁found ▁against ▁them ▁on ▁both ▁stat ut ory ▁and ▁constitution al ▁claims . ▁ ▁The ▁pla int iffs ▁then ▁returned ▁to ▁the ▁District ▁Court ▁seeking ▁a ▁new ▁hearing ▁on ▁the ▁constitution al ▁question . ▁The ▁def endant ▁then ▁sought ▁a ▁dismiss al ▁on ▁res ▁jud ic ata ▁grounds , ▁cont ending ▁that ▁the ▁decision ▁of ▁the ▁state ▁court ▁was ▁binding ▁as ▁to ▁the ▁constitution al ▁issue . ▁