State University of New York v. Denton
Not provided (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injunction is only binding on the named parties, their agents or servants, and those acting in collusion or combination with them. A non-party who has notice of the injunction but acts independently cannot be held in contempt for its violation.
Facts:
- In late February 1970, student disturbances occurred on the campus of the State University of New York at Buffalo, prompting the university to call in city police.
- Students protested the police presence by barring administrators from offices and disrupting a basketball game.
- Appellants, 45 university faculty members, were not party to the initial violent and disruptive actions by the students.
- On March 11, the faculty senate passed a resolution urging the university president to remove the police, but no action was taken.
- On March 15, the 45 faculty members entered the university president's office and refused to leave as a form of protest.
- During the protest, one faculty member handed a university staffer a paper stating the group would remain until police were removed and expressing sympathy with the general purposes of the student strike.
Procedural Posture:
- The State University of New York commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Erie County, against 13 named students seeking a permanent injunction.
- The trial court issued a temporary restraining order against the students.
- On March 5, 1970, after the student defendants failed to appear, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the students and 'all other persons receiving notice' from engaging in disruptive conduct.
- The injunction was served by posting copies at various locations on campus.
- The university initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the 45 faculty members (appellants) for violating the March 5 order.
- The Supreme Court, Erie County (the trial court) adjudged the faculty members guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced them to 30 days in jail.
- The faculty members appealed the judgment of contempt to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.
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 preliminary injunction that purports to bind 'all other persons receiving notice' apply to non-parties who act independently and are not agents of, or in collusion with, the named defendants?
Opinions:
Majority - Del Vecchio, J. P.
No. A preliminary injunction is not binding on non-parties who act independently, even with notice of the order, unless they are proven to be agents or servants of the named defendants or are acting in collusion with them. The court cannot enjoin the world at large; its jurisdiction is limited to the parties over whom it has personal service. The power to punish a non-party for contempt is founded on the principle that the non-party was legally identified with a named defendant, either by acting as their agent or by colluding with them. In this case, there was no proof that the faculty members were agents of the students or that they acted in concert with them. The state conceded the faculty were not involved in the original disruptions, and there was no evidence the students themselves violated the injunction, making it impossible for the faculty to have aided and abetted a violation. Mere sympathy with the students' goals is insufficient to establish the required collusion.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the foundational principle limiting the scope of judicial injunctions, as established in cases like Rigas v. Livingston. It serves as a crucial check on judicial power, preventing courts from issuing 'roving' injunctions that functionally operate as laws binding the general public. The ruling reinforces the due process requirement that a person cannot be bound by a court order without having had an opportunity to be heard. This case clearly distinguishes between independent action by non-parties and action taken in concert with enjoined parties, setting a high bar for holding non-parties in contempt.
Unlock the full brief for State University of New York v. Denton