United States v. Tobias Elsass

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the district court’s injunction was not vague and overbroad in part because “the court offered to provide clarification as needed”
• “[I]t is doubtful that defendants have standing to bring a claim that the injunction is so overly broad and non-specific that it violates the due process rights of certain non-parties, . . . as that is not their claim to bring.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• upholding 25 injunction restraining defendants and related nonparties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).