Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 1/14/1974

Schmidt v. Lessard

Citations

  • 414 U.S. 473
  • 94 S. Ct. 713
  • 38 L. Ed. 2d 661
  • 1974 U.S. LEXIS 40
  • 18 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 13

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that appointed counsel must \act as an advocate\ for proposed ward
  • explaining that injunctions must be specific “to avoid the possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree [that is] too vague”
  • warning that “[t]he judicial contempt power is a potent weapon” that should not be “founded upon a decree too vague to be understood” (citation omitted)
  • noting that injunctions that merely instruct the enjoined party to obey the law are generally overbroad
  • finding that because “an injunctive order prohibits conduct under threat of judicial punishment, basic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed.”
  • finding that because “an injunctive order prohibits conduct under threat of judicial punishment, basic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Douglas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

371 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Schmidt v. Lessard

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.