Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Linwood T. Ford v. Edward Kammerer

450 F.2d 279

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-10-29
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • stating that an injunction must be obeyed only to the extent it reasonably specifies the conduct prohibited
  • reversing contempt judgment because "ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt"
  • contempt for violation of court order reversed because order contained "no prohibitory language explicitly addressed" to the appellant's act
  • contempt reversed because court order contained “no prohibitory language explicitly addressed” to the appellant’s act
  • ambiguities resolved in favor of one charged with contempt

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Linwood T. Ford v. Edward Kammerer. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
64 opinions
FORD v. KAMMERER,450 F.2d 279(3rd Cir. 1971)
LINWOOD T. FORD ET AL. v. EDWARD KAMMERER ET AL.
Nos. 19127-19129.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued September 28, 1971.
Decided October 29, 1971.
Page 280
Leonard M. Sagot, Ettinger, Poserina, Silverman, Dubin, Anapol Sagot, Philadelphia, Pa. (M. H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for defendants-appellants.

Stephen A. Sheller, Astor Weiss, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, HASTIE, Circuit Judge, and HERMAN, District Judge.
[1] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
[2] This 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).

[3] Whether 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.

[4] The 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.

[5] The order of the district court will be reversed.Page 302