Ex Parte Purvis

Supreme Court of Alabama
382 So.2d 512 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court order issued by a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed until it is reversed by proper legal proceedings, and a party who violates such an order cannot collaterally attack its constitutionality as a defense in a subsequent criminal contempt proceeding.

Facts:

In July 1979, James R. Purvis, representing a union, requested that The Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham recognize the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for its hourly employees.
Purvis also demanded that the Board commence collective bargaining and begin payroll deductions for union dues.
On July 31, 1979, after the Board refused these demands, Purvis informed the Board that its employees would strike.
On August 2, 1979, the union commenced a strike and began picketing the Board's facilities.
During the strike, there were allegations of striking employees harassing and interfering with customers entering and leaving the Board's property.
After the strike began, Purvis personally continued to picket a Board facility on the afternoon of August 2nd and the morning of August 3rd.
While picketing, Purvis threatened a supervisor who drove through the picket line.

Procedural Posture:

The Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham petitioned the Jefferson County Circuit Court (a trial court) for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the union and James R. Purvis.
On August 2, 1979, the trial court issued the TRO, which enjoined the strike and all picketing activities.
The Board filed a petition for an order to show cause why Purvis should not be held in contempt of court on August 3, 1979.
Purvis subsequently filed a motion to dissolve or modify the TRO, which the trial court denied.
After a hearing on August 6, 1979, the trial court found Purvis guilty of three separate counts of criminal contempt for violating the TRO.
The trial court sentenced Purvis to three consecutive five-day jail sentences and fined him $100 for each offense.
After being incarcerated, Purvis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court of Alabama, the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a party who violates a temporary restraining order, without first seeking to have it dissolved or modified, have the right to challenge the order's constitutionality as a defense in a subsequent criminal contempt proceeding?

Opinions:

Majority - Embry, J.

No. A party who violates a temporary restraining order without first attempting to have it dissolved or modified through proper legal channels cannot challenge the order's constitutionality as a defense in a subsequent criminal contempt proceeding. The well-established collateral bar rule dictates that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed until it is reversed, even if the order may be constitutionally defective. While there are narrow exceptions for orders that are 'transparently invalid' or would cause 'irreparable injury' with no adequate path for appellate review, those exceptions do not apply here. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing public disorder and ensuring the operation of a critical public utility, so the order was not transparently invalid or frivolous. Furthermore, Purvis had an adequate legal remedy, as a hearing was scheduled within five days, and he could have sought modification or dissolution of the order before disobeying it. Respect for the judicial process requires that parties challenge court orders through the courts, not through defiant disobedience.

Analysis:

This case strongly reaffirms the collateral bar rule in Alabama, mirroring the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent in Walker v. City of Birmingham. The decision prioritizes the integrity and authority of the judicial process over an individual's unilateral decision to disobey a court order they believe is unconstitutional, even when First Amendment rights are implicated. It establishes that the proper venue for challenging a court order is within the court system itself, through motions to dissolve or appeals, not through defiance in the streets. This precedent significantly limits the defenses available to individuals charged with contempt for violating injunctions, particularly in the context of protests and labor disputes, by forcing them to choose between compliance and contempt, rather than allowing them to disobey and then litigate the order's validity.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ex Parte Purvis (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"