Weed v. Bilbrey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “Local 530 cannot claim that its due process rights were violated” where it “had actual notice of the [civil] contempt proceedings”
• finding contempt where the party alleging ambiguity had previously complained that the same order was too harsh to comply with
• violator “must be able to ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden”
• “Due process requires that before being held in contempt, a party must have notice that it is a defendant in a contempt hearing.” (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(b))
• “Not one of the [individual] contemnors, other than Local 530, received the notice to which they were entitled under Rule 43(a). In the absence thereof, an order of contempt against them as non-parties to the proceedings was inappropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).