Vermont Women's Health Center v. Operation Rescue
not provided (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), a non-party to an injunction who acts in active concert or participation with a named party can be held in contempt for violating the injunction if they have received actual notice of the order, even without formal personal service.
Facts:
- The superior court issued a TRO against Michael McHugh and Operation Rescue, prohibiting them from blocking doorways, entrances, or driveways at the Vermont Women's Health Center.
- On October 24, 1989, McHugh led a group of over fifty protesters, including the other defendants, in a physical invasion of the health center's grounds and building.
- The protesters blocked doorways and exits, positioned a truck to block the driveway, and locked themselves to one another inside the building's hallways.
- The protesters' actions, which included loud singing and chanting, forced the cancellation of the day's scheduled health services for women.
- After gaining entry, the chief of police read the TRO aloud in the two main wings of the building where protesters were located.
- Police informed individual protesters that they were violating a court order, offered them a chance to leave to avoid arrest, and placed a copy of the TRO on each person who refused to take one.
Procedural Posture:
- The Vermont Women's Health Center and other plaintiffs brought a civil contempt action in the superior court against Michael McHugh and thirteen other protesters (defendants).
- Following evidentiary hearings, the superior court found the defendants in contempt of its prior temporary restraining order.
- The superior court ordered the defendants to pay damages and attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs and imposed prospective coercive fines for future violations.
- The defendants appealed the superior court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
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 court have jurisdiction to hold individuals in civil contempt for violating a temporary restraining order (TRO) when they were not named parties and were not formally served with the order prior to the violation, but acted in concert with a named party and had actual notice of the order's terms?
Opinions:
Majority - Dooley, J.
Yes. A court has jurisdiction to hold individuals in contempt for violating a TRO under these circumstances. Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) makes an injunction binding not only on the named parties but also on those 'in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.' The statute requiring service (12 V.S.A. § 122) is a procedural prerequisite for named parties and does not limit the court's power over non-party aiders and abettors governed by Rule 65(d). The phrase 'or otherwise' in Rule 65(d) explicitly allows for methods of notice other than formal service. Requiring formal service on every potential non-party participant would render court orders unenforceable, as groups could simply rotate personnel to evade the injunction. In this case, there was substantial circumstantial evidence to support the trial court's finding of actual notice, including the police chief reading the order aloud and officers placing copies on each defendant. A defendant's attempt to drown out the reading of an order can be considered evidence of their awareness of its contents or a willful attempt to defeat notice.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a court's authority to enforce its orders against non-parties who aid and abet a named party in violating an injunction. By prioritizing 'actual notice' over formal service for these individuals, the court aligns Vermont law with federal precedent and prevents a significant loophole that could undermine the effectiveness of injunctions, particularly in mass protest situations. The ruling makes it easier for parties to obtain compliance from large, diffuse groups, as they need only prove that participants were made aware of the order's terms, rather than serving each one individually. This shifts the legal focus from a procedural formality (service) to the substantive question of a person's knowledge and intent.
Unlock the full brief for Vermont Women's Health Center v. Operation Rescue