In re Deborah L.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding injunction was impermissibly vague where it failed to adequately identify acts that it restrained
• concluding injunction was impermissibly vague where it failed to adequately identify acts that it restrained
• holding injunction must be narrowly drawn and “must not be so broad that it would enjoin a defendant from acting within its lawful rights”
• “Requiring that an enjoined party search for evidence to understand what conduct is enjoined undermines the purposes of an injunction, which are to remedy specific harm and to provide notice of the prohibited conduct.”
• “Requiring that an enjoined party search for evidence to understand what conduct is enjoined undermines the purposes of an injunction, which are to remedy specific harm and to provide notice of the prohibited conduct.”
• “Requiring that an enjoined party search for evidence to understand what conduct is enjoined undermines the purposes of an injunction, which are to remedy specific harm and to provide notice of the prohibited conduct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).