Article:
Doug Rendleman, Beyond Contempt: Obligors to Injunctions, 53 Texas L. Rev. 873 (1975).
 

Abstract:
In determining whether a person must conform his conduct to an injunction, contempt courts face interesting and challenging issues of continuing concern. The courts articulate the guiding principle with relative ease: the contemnor has no obligation to obey whenever the reach of contempt exceeds the grasp of the relevant injunction. But their conclusions often dismay the perceptive observer. Traditional analysis has produced this situation by expounding conclusory doctrine without giving sufficient consideration to the salient facts of cases, proper procedural principles, or underlying social realities. Moreover, doctrinal complexity continually leads courts astray, causing them to exonerate those they should hold in contempt and hold in contempt those they should absolve. Most importantly, few issues present more crucial problems concerning the role of the courts in the total scheme of governmental control of private conduct. This article examines existing doctrine and reveals its inadequacies in order to foster both productive analysis and fair results. In addition, it endeavors to posit a frame of reference based on separation of powers broad enough to encompass the major obligor issues.