§ 1.5.2 Requirement of Specificity.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 1.5.2 Requirement of Specificity. The second requirement of Rule 65(h) is that an order be specific in its terms. Henderson v. Jacobs,73 Ariz. 195, 239 P.2d 1082 (1952) . The purpose of the rule is two-fold: “(1) to prevent confusion on the part of those faced with injunctive orders and (2) to aid the appellate court in defining the bounds of the injunctive relief.” Consumers Gas & Oil, Inc. v. Farmland Industries, Inc.,84 F.3d 367, 371 (10th Cir. 1996).

It is well-settled that a party bound by an injunction must be able to determine from its terms what he may and may not do. A party cannot be held guilty of contempt for violation of an order that is vague or uncertain. International Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n,389 U.S. 64, 88 S. Ct. 201 (1967) . Weber v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. 2d 144, 156 P.2d 923 (1945) . As stated in 11A Wright & Miller § 2955 at 319-20 :

If the order is vague or too general, a bold individual, left to determine exactly what conduct has been enjoined, might end up engaging in the activity that the court is seeking to prevent, thereby defeating its utility. On the other hand, a less aggressive individual might refrain from undertaking innocent or even desirable conduct because of concern the possibility of contempt proceedings being brought against him.

Where unavoidable, a complex order will be acceptable especially where “the use of bold face and capital letters [are utilized] to highlight important points.” Sweeney v. Bane,996 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1993) .

An...