## Facts

- SUNY at Buffalo experienced student disturbances in February 1970, prompting the university to request assistance from Buffalo police and resulting in clashes and disruption on campus.
- On February 27, 1970, the university sought injunctive relief against 13 named students and “John Doe and Jane Doe” to prevent further violence and disruption.
- On March 5, 1970, after no student appearance on the return date, the court issued a preliminary injunction binding the named students and “all other persons receiving notice of this preliminary injunction, whether acting individually or in concert.”
- The injunction restrained unlawful disruption or interference with the university’s operations and unlawful interference with access to university property, and also restrained unlawful force, violence, or threats.
- The injunction was served by posting copies at various campus locations.
- On March 15, 1970, 45 faculty members entered the university president’s office and refused to leave as part of a protest concerning police presence on campus.
- The State conceded on appeal that the faculty members were not involved in the earlier violent and disruptive student conduct that led to the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the preliminary injunction, obtained in an action against student defendants and phrased to cover “all other persons receiving notice,” clearly and sufficiently covered the faculty members’ protest conduct to support criminal contempt.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the criminal contempt judgments against the 45 faculty members.
- The court held the preliminary injunction, strictly construed, was not sufficiently clear or broad to include the faculty members’ conduct within its prohibitions for purposes of criminal contempt.
- The 30-day jail sentences were vacated.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal contempt requires strict construction of the order allegedly violated; ambiguity as to the persons bound or conduct prohibited defeats criminal contempt.
- Nonparties may be bound only where the injunction and the underlying action plainly encompass them (including where they act in concert with named parties); generalized language cannot substitute for clear coverage.
- Posting and notice, without a clear and unambiguous order that reaches the alleged contemnor’s conduct, is insufficient to impose criminal contempt liability.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the faculty members’ criminal contempt convictions because the preliminary injunction—issued in a student-centered action and framed in generalized terms—did not clearly and unequivocally prohibit the faculty protest conduct or plainly bind them as nonparties.


State Univ. of N.Y. v. Denton, 35 A.D.2d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1970)