Fax From Hodgkiss to Cox RE: Legal Analysis of Related Cases

    APR-07-88 11:18AM ie Uo +7043345654 T-457 P.01/02 F-278 

7 worth Ave. 

Charlotte, N.C. 28204 

facsimile transmittal 

Todd Cox Fax: 202-682-1312 
  

Anita Hodgkiss Date! 04/07/98 
  

Cromartie Pages. © © 9 
  

Jackie Berrien, Adam Stein 
  

[1 Urgent [J For Review [J Pease Comment [J Please Reply [J Please Recycle 

  

Notes. Here are the notes from the cases | found. 1 will aiso do a litle more 
research (this was a Westlaw search and | want to fake a look at what's in the 
digests), and pass along anything else that looks helpful. Let me know if there are 
other issues you want me to look at. 

These are roughly in order of helpfulness, | didnt always write down the case 
names: 

1. Supreme Court 
" Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476, 94S.Ct. 713, 715, 38 L.Ed .2d 661 (1974) 

on specificity requirement of Rule 65(d) — those being enjoined need notice of 
what they shouldn't do 

  

2. Coun of Appeals 

78 F.3d 1523 (11™ Cir. 1996) — Good language on what an injunction must 
provide under Rule 65(d) and why it must be specific — can’t simply enjoin all 
possible breaches of the law. 

64 F.3d 316 (7" Cir. 1995) — failure to comply with Rule 65(d) renders Order not 
an injunction — injunction vacated 

United States v. Virginia, 569 F.2d 1300 (4" Cir. 1978), injunction vacated where 
ts not based on explicit reasons.  



   

  

APR=07-88 11:18AM kin! A +7043345654 T-457 P.02/02 F-278 

. Brock v. Global Home Prods., 810 F.2d 448 (4 Cir. 1987), injunction not specific enough, 
approving Alberti (earlier 4" cir. case - see below) appellate court changes order 10 make 

it specific. 

Continental Airline Pilots, 125 F.3d 120 (3 Cir. 1997) injunction invalid where it fails to 

comply with Rule 65(d), no reasons given, no description of enjoined acts, ban (Mee al 
  

U.S. Air Force v. Carolina Parachute Corp., 907 F.2d 1469 (4" Cir. 1990) injunction 
vacated where iis not detailed enough, bankruptcy case 
  

090 F. 2d 807 (5% Cir. 1993) remand where injunction failed fo set forth reasons in 
bankruptcy case 

086 F.2d 476 (Fed. Cir. 1993) injunction did not comply with Rule 65(d), vacated and 
remanded with instructions to issue inunction that complies 

112 F.3d 267 (7 Cir. 1997) where violation of Rule 65(d) is technical, not substantive 

(injunction wasn't specific enough) court has authority 10 hear appeal anyway (lower ct. 

reversed on other grounds) 

Seatile-First National Bank v. Manges, 900 F.2d 795 (5 Cir. 1990) injunction kept in force 

until reasons could be given (bankruptcy case) 
  

961 F.2d 390 (2™ Cir) requirement for statement of reasons under Rule 65(d) applies to 
Order not injunction, citing 11 Wright & Miller, § 2955 at 539 

« Board of Ed. of Cook Co. v. llinois State Bd. Of Ed, 103 F.3d 545 (7" Cir. 1996) 
upholding injunction as sufficient under Rule 65(d) 
  

119 F.3d 393 (6™ Cir. 1997) injunction adequately set forth reasons 

661 F.2d 369 (5" Cir. 1981), injunction in employment case is specific enough 

3. District Court 

U.S. v. McAndrew, 480 F. Supp. 1189 (E.D. Va. 1979) — Compliance with Rule 65(d) is 
mandatory, citing Alberti v. Cruise, 383 F.2d 268, 272 (4™ Cir. 1967), but failure fo adhere 

10 every detail does not render the judgment vad. 

  

Chandler v. James, 985 F Supp. 1068 (M.D. Ala.1997). 
  

» U.S. v. Kasz Enterpnses, 862 F. Supp. 717 (D. Rl. 1994) injunction must be specific 
  

33 B.R. 129 — intelligent review requires reasons for injunction