Schmidt v. Lessard

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).