## Facts

- A women’s health clinic in Burlington, Vermont, along with certain staff and patients, sought injunctive relief against an anti-abortion organization, its leader, and others acting with them.
- In November 1988, the Chittenden Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order (later extended and left in effect by stipulation) prohibiting, among other conduct, blocking entrances/driveways/parking areas, entering or attempting to enter the clinic, directing loud verbal sounds into the clinic, and physically blocking persons seeking entry.
- On October 24, 1989, a group led by the organization’s leader, including the individual defendants, entered the clinic grounds and building, blocked doorways and exits, and used a large truck to block the driveway.
- The clinic and individual plaintiffs moved for civil contempt based on violation of the restraining order.
- The superior court found fourteen persons in civil contempt, awarded compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees, and imposed prospective coercive fines to deter future violations.
- Defendants appealed, arguing defective service as to most individuals, insufficient proof of actual notice and violation, and improper sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether individuals not personally served with the temporary restraining order could be held in civil contempt where the order purported to bind those acting in concert with named defendants and the individuals had actual notice.
2. Whether plaintiffs proved by clear and convincing evidence that defendants had actual notice of the restraining order and violated its terms.
3. Whether the trial court properly imposed compensatory damages (including joint and several liability), attorneys’ fees, and prospective coercive fines as civil contempt remedies.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the contempt judgment and sanctions in full.
- The court held that the statutory service requirement for contempt proceedings was procedural and did not bar enforcement against persons acting in concert with enjoined parties who had actual notice of the order.
- The court concluded substantial evidence supported findings, under the clear-and-convincing standard, that defendants had actual notice and engaged in prohibited conduct such as blocking entrances and obstructing access with a truck and banners.
- The court upheld joint and several liability for compensatory damages and costs resulting from the disruption.
- The court upheld attorneys’ fees as compensatory relief in civil contempt and approved prospective coercive fines aimed at securing future compliance.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctions may be enforced through contempt against nonparties who act in active concert or participation with named parties and have actual notice of the order.
- A statutory requirement of service before contempt is a procedural prerequisite to initiating contempt proceedings, not a categorical limit on whom an injunction may bind when rule-based “acting in concert” standards are met.
- Civil contempt must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; on appeal, contempt findings are sustained if supported by substantial evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
- Civil contempt remedies may include compensatory damages, joint and several liability among contemnors for harm caused by concerted violations, attorneys’ fees incurred to enforce the court’s order, and prospective coercive fines designed to compel compliance rather than punish.

## Conclusion

The court sustained civil contempt findings against abortion protesters who, with actual notice, acted in concert to obstruct clinic access in violation of a restraining order, and it affirmed compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and prospective coercive fines as proper remedial measures to enforce compliance.


Vt. Women's Health Ctr. v. Operation Rescue, 159 Vt. 141, 617 A.2d 411 (1992)