Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

450 F.2d 279

Docket Nos. 19127-19129.

Ford v. Kammerer

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Sept. 28, 1971.

Decided Oct. 29, 1971.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-10-29

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.”

quoted by 8 later decisions, including Bard Ranch Company v. Weber, Corp. of Haverford College v. Reeher

“shall describe in reasonable detail ... the act or acts sought to be restrained.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York v. Local of Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 411

Relies on Howat v. State of Kansas · Newton v. Kings County Lighting Co. · Ford v. Kammerer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1971-10-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc. (1991), Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman (1985)

35 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

21019711980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*280Leonard M. Sagot, Ettinger, Poserina, Silverman, Dubin, Anapol & Sagot, Philadelphia, Pa. (M. H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for defendants-appellants.

¶2Stephen A. Sheller, Astor & Weiss, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.

¶3Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, HASTIE, Circuit Judge, and HERMAN, District Judge.

¶4OPINION OF THE COURT

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6This is an appeal of a contempt order based on a violation of a preliminary injunction. The injunction was issued in connection with an action to declare a labor union’s method of imposing certain disciplinary procedures violative of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a) (5) (1965).

¶7Whether or not the district court issued the preliminary injunction on the basis of a correct or incorrect view of the law, the order must unquestionably be obeyed. Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-190, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550 (1922). However, it need be obeyed only to the extent it reasonably specifies the conduct prohibited. Thus, Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. (1970), provides that orders granting injunctions “shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.” This language strongly suggests that prohibited conduct will not be implied from such orders; that they are binding only to the extent they contain sufficient description of the prohibited or mandated acts. The long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.

¶8The written findings made by the district court, 287 F.Supp. 853, in connection with issuance of the preliminary injunction clearly reveal the court’s view that summary punishment by unions violates the statute. However, the crucial defect is that the provisions of the order contain no prohibitory language explicitly addressed to the summary punishment area. It follows that the language of the injunction did not prohibit the conduct which formed the basis for the contempt order.

¶9The order of the district court will be reversed.

/450/f2d/279 · .json · Public domain