G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 1972–2026 · 3 courts ·
…the longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.
at p. 280
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Donald Trump
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Majority Op. at 17 (citing Clinton, 973 F.3d at 113), 19 (citing Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554, 561 (2019)), 20 (first citing Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam); then citing Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1991)), 22 (citing Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226, 1234 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Donald Trump
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Majority Op. at 17 (citing Clinton, 973 F.3d at 113), 19 (citing Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554, 561 (2019)), 20 (first citing Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam); then citing Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1991)), 22 (citing Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226, 1234 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Team Systems International, LLC; Miller v. Mott, et al.
This standard reflects the fact that civil contempt is a severe remedy, and that 10 Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971); United States on behalf of I.R.S. v. Norton, 717 F.2d 767, 774 (3d Cir. 1983) (“A party should not be held in contempt unless a court first gives fair warning that certain acts are forbidden; any ambiguity in the law should be resolved in favor of the party charged with contempt.”) 11 U.S. v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1002, 1007 (3d Cir. 1972). 12 In re W.R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Team Systems International, LLC; Miller v. Mott, et al.
This standard reflects the fact that civil contempt is a severe remedy, and that 10 Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971); United States on behalf of I.R.S. v. Norton, 717 F.2d 767, 774 (3d Cir. 1983) (“A party should not be held in contempt unless a court first gives fair warning that certain acts are forbidden; any ambiguity in the law should be resolved in favor of the party charged with contempt.”) 11 U.S. v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1002, 1007 (3d Cir. 1972). 12 In re W.R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J.G.G. v. Donald Trump
Other circuits agree: The “long- standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
B&B DEPARTMENT STORES SOUTH LLC v. ND RETAIL LLC DBA QUIET STORM SURF & TURF
No. 43 at 1-2. read any ‘ambiguities’ or ‘omissions’ in such a court order as ‘redound[ing] to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.’” NBA Props., Inc. v. Gold, 895 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971)); see also Harding v. Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, Civ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
County of Fulton v. Sec. of Com., Aplt.
Cf. Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (citing Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-90 (1922)) (“Whether or not the district court issued the preliminary injunction on the basis of a correct or incorrect view of the law, the order must unquestionably be obeyed.”). 110 Fulton County’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 12. [J-46-2022] - 46 decertified voting machines that had already been decommissioned and were never going to be used again.” 111 The conclusory nature of the County’s arguments can best be illustrated by the following excerpt from its sub…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
County of Fulton v. Sec. of Com., Aplt.
As this Court recognized in Commonwealth v. Garrison, 386 A.2d 971 (Pa. 1978), which the Majority cites, both “ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Garrison, 386 A.2d at 977 (emphasis added) (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3rd Cir. 1971)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gucci v. Bank of China
Because the contempt finding and the sanctions 4 themselves were impermissible for other reasons, however, we specifically reverse the 5 November 15, 2012 order to make clear that the court may not impose sanctions, in the 6 event it determines that personal jurisdiction is appropriately exercised over the Bank, 7 without finding a new violation of a court order. 45 1 A clear and unambiguous order is one that “leaves no uncertainty in the 2 minds of those to whom [the order] is addressed.” Id. at 424 (alteration in original) 3 (citation omitted). “[T]he longstanding, salutary rule in con…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.
(2×)
The First Circuit reversed the contempt finding, declining to read the term "enabling" to "encompass the simple granting of the franchise itself" when doing so would require "reading [the decree] rather strongly against, rather than `to the benefit of[,] the person charged with contempt.'" Id. at 33 (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greene v. Finn
One of the controlling principles of law in contempt jurisprudence is that ambiguities in court orders "redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt." Bard Ranch Co. v. Weber, 557 P.2d 722, 733 (Wyo.1976) (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Clean Harbors, Inc. v. Arkema, Inc. (In re Safety-Kleen)
Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Boston Scientific Corp.
Any ambiguities or omissions should be read as “redounding] to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Id. (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971)) (alteration in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abbott Labs v. Unlimited Beverages
Hughes v. United States, 342 U.S. 353, 357-58 (1952); Ford v. 5 Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3rd Cir. 1971) (stating that an injunction must be obeyed only to the extent it reasonably specifies the conduct prohibited).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abbott Laboratories v. Unlimited Beverages, Inc.
Hughes v. United States, 342 U.S. 353, 357-58 , 72 S.Ct. 306 , 96 L.Ed. 394 (1952); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3rd Cir.1971) (stating that an injunction must be obeyed only to the extent it reasonably specifies the conduct prohibited).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
A v. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.P.A.
Consequently, “[t]he longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.’ ” Drywall Tapers, 889 F.2d at 400 (Mahoney, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971)) (alteration in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilday v. Dubois
From these requirements flows the important corollary that courts are to construe ambiguities and omissions in consent decrees as “ ‘redounding] to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.’ ” NBA Properties, 895 F.2d at 32 (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971) (per curiam)); see also Kemp, 947 F.2d at 16 (same). 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilday v. Dubois
From these requirements flows the important corollary that courts are to construe ambigu- ities and omissions in consent decrees as "'redound[ing] to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.'" NBA Properties , 895 F.2d at 32 (quoting Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam)); see also Kemp, 947 F.2d at 16 (same). 1.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. City Of Philadelphia
See United States on behalf of IRS v. Norton, 717 F.2d 767, 774 (3d Cir.1983); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. City of Philadelphia
(2×)
See United States on behalf of IRS v. Norton, 717 F.2d 767, 774 (3d Cir.1983); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stockschlaeder & McDonald, Esqs. v. Kittay (In Re Stockbridge Funding Corp.)
The principles found in Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3rd Cir.1971) and Frankford Trust v. Allanoff, 29 B.R. 407, 410 (D.C.E.D.Pa.1983) are not applicable here. 18 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ford Motor Company v. Summit Motor Products, Inc.
The long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt." Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc.
The long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
University Medical Center v. Sullivan
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Western Pennsylvania Motor Carriers Association, 660 F.2d 76, 82 (3rd Cir.1981); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3rd Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nba Properties, Inc. v. Richard Gold
Also, we must read any “ambiguities” or “omissions” in such a court order as “redoundpng] to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971) (per curiam); see In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 339 (2d Cir.1985); New York Telephone Co. v. Communications Workers of America, 445 F.2d 39, 48 (2d Cir.1971); 11 C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Drywall Tapers And Pointers Of Greater New York, Local 1974 Of I.B.P.A.T. v. Local 530 Of Operative Plasterers And Cement Masons International Association
Furthermore, "[t]he longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt." Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971). 102 The first element of the Powell rule, requiring that an injunction be "clear and unambiguous," builds upon the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d) that an injunction "be specific in terms" and "shall describe in reasonable detail ... the act or acts sought to be restrained." In my judgment, this element has not been satisfied. 103 Local 530 clearly took actions calculated …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Drywall Tapers & Pointers of Greater New York, Local 1974 of I.B.P.A.T. v. Local 530 of Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n
Furthermore, “[t]he longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thermice Corporation v. Vistron Corporation, Standard Oil Chemical Company (Formerly Vistron Corporation)
(2×)
Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DUNN v. Rulli
Moreover, the “long-standing salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Commonwealth v. Garrison, 478 Pa. 356, 369 , 386 A.2d 971, 977 (1978) (citing Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Town of Islip v. Eastern Air Lines, Incorporated
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Accordingly, before a court may use the contempt power for violation of its injunction, it must be shown that “the party enjoined [could] ascertain from the four corners of the order precisely what acts are forbidden.” Sanders, supra, 473 F.2d at 247 ; see Longshoremen’s Ass’n, supra, 389 U.S. at 76 , 88 S.Ct. at 208 (“potent weapon” of contempt may not be “founded upon a decree too vague to be understood”); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971) (the “long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald, a Pennsylvania Professional Corporation v. Michael Holtzman Individually and as Trustee for Gibson, N v. Gibson, n.v.: A Netherlands Antilles Corporation Jacques Trempont, Individually and as Trustee for Gibson, N v. Claude A. Antille, Individually and as a Managing Director of Gibson, N v. John Doe Representing All of the Parties in Interest of Gibson, N v. Christoffer Smeets, Individually and as Director of Curacao Corp. Co. N v. Eugene Bruinendael, Individually and as Director of Curacao Corp. Co. N v. Henricul De Rooid, Individually and as Director of Curacao Corp. Co. N v. Cornelius Lind, Individually and as Director of Curacao Corp. Co. N v. V. Edward H. Greenwald, Sr., Edward H. Greenwald, Jr., William Sumner Scott, and Lebon Walker, Third-Party Appeal of William Sumner Scott
In view of this similarity, we find applicable our "longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases [ ] that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt." United States v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1002, 1006 (3d Cir.1972); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971); see also International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 76 , 88 S.Ct. 201, 208 , 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967). 35 In order to cite a person for contempt for violating a court order, two principles, each a corollary of the other, must, a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman
In view of this similarity, we find applicable our “longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases [] that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” United States v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1002, 1006 (3d Cir.1972); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971); see also International Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 76 , 88 S.Ct. 201, 208 , 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Damon
Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d at 279, 280 (3rd Cir.1971); Frankfort Trust, 29 B.R. at 410 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Frankford Trust Co. v. Allanoff
Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litigation. Magnesco Restaurants, Inc. v. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips, Inc. And Mrs. Paul's Kitchens, Inc.
P. 65(d); Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 444 , 94 S.Ct. 1113, 1126 , 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Common Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Common Cause and David Cohen v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and John F. Ahearne, Chairman, Common Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
See Internat'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, supra, 389 U.S. at 76 , 88 S.Ct. at 208 (reversing finding of civil contempt for alleged violation of vague decree); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (reversing contempt judgment because "ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt"). 13 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Common Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
See Internat’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, supra, 389 U.S. at 76 , 88 S.Ct. at 208 (reversing finding of civil contempt for alleged violation of vague decree); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (reversing contempt judgment because “ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt”). 13 III.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital
Pasadena City Board of Education, 427 U.S. 424, 439-40 , 96 S.Ct. 2697, 2706 , 49 L.Ed.2d 599 (1976); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Garrison
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
"The long-standing salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt." Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3rd Cir. 1971); accord, United States v. Christie Industries, 465 F.2d 1002 (3rd Cir. 1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bard Ranch Company v. Weber
The most fundamental postulates of our legal order forbid the imposition of a penalty for disobeying a command that defies comprehension.” It was said in Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3 Cir. 1971) that the question whether a preliminary injunction was issued upon a correct view of the law is not material in a contempt citation but that “it need be obeyed only to the extent it reasonably specifies the conduct prohibited.” (citing Rule 65(d), F.R.C.P.), 14 and concludes: “ * * * The long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders «redoun…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Ryan
(2×)
Bowers v. Reitz, 315 Pa. 310 , 172 A. 707 (1934); Silliman v. Whitmer, 173 Pa. 401 , 34 A. 56 (1896); Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 , 42 S.Ct. 277 , 66 L.Ed. 550 (1922); Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971); United States v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496, 509 (5th Cir. 1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FRANKLIN MINT CORPORATION v. Franklin Mint, Ltd.
In a recent case this *482 court stated: ‘The longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.’ Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971) ; accord Lichtenstein v. Lichtenstein, 425 F.2d 1111 (3d Cir. 1970); In re Rubin, 378 F.2d 104 (3d Cir. 1967).” United States v. Christie Industries, Inc., 465 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (3d Cir. 1972) .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Christie Industries, Inc. Edwin C. Christie. Appeal of Edwin C. Christie
In a recent case this court has stated: “The longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir. 1971); accord, Lichtenstein v. Lichtenstein, 425 F.2d 1111 (3d Cir. *1007 1970); In re Rubin, 378 F.2d 104 (3d Cir. 1967).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Corp. of Haverford College v. Reeher
The long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (C.A. 3, 1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Axia NetMedia Corp. v. Mass. Technology Park Corp.
See NBA Props. , 895 F.2d at 32 ("[W]e must read any 'ambiguities' or 'omissions' in such a court order as 'redound[ing] to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.' " (quoting Ford v. Kammerer , 450 F.2d 279 , 280 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam) ) ). 4.
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilfred Keyes, and Congress of Hispanic Educators, Plaintiffs/intervenors-Appellees v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado
See Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971); see also United States v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720, 726 (9th Cir.1985) (injunctions not to be set aside unless “so vague that they have no reasonably specific meaning,” but *670 all ambiguities or inconsistencies are resolved in favor of the person subject to the injunction”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Joshi v. Professional Health Services, Inc.
(2×)
See Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Yair Holtzman
(2×)
See Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.1971) (per curiam) (injunctions need be obeyed only to the extent that prohibited conduct is reasonably specified).
cited
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Noel Berthold Baum, Bankrupt. Franz Joseph Baddock v. Joe Villard and Jack P. Brook
See Ford v. Kammerer, 3 Cir., 1971, 450 F.2d 279 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Linwood T. FORD Et Al.
v.
Edward KAMMERER Et Al.
v.
Edward KAMMERER Et Al.
19127-19129.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Oct 29, 1971.
Leonard M. Sagot, Ettinger, Poserina, Silverman, Dubin, Anapol & Sagot, Philadelphia, Pa. (M. H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for defendants-appellants., Stephen A. Sheller, Astor & Weiss, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Seitz, Hastie, Herman.
Cited by 62 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:This is an appeal of a contempt order based on a violation of a preliminary injunction. The injunction was issued in connection with an action to declare a labor union’s method of imposing certain disciplinary procedures violative of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a) (5) (1965).
Whether or not the district court issued the preliminary injunction on the basis of a correct or incorrect view of the law, the order must unquestionably be obeyed. Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-190, 42 S.Ct. 277, 66 L.Ed. 550 (1922). However, it need be obeyed only to the extent it reasonably specifies the conduct prohibited. Thus, Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. (1970), provides that orders granting injunctions “shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.” This language strongly suggests that prohibited conduct will not be implied from such orders; that they are binding only to the extent they contain sufficient description of the prohibited or mandated acts. The long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.
The written findings made by the district court, 287 F.Supp. 853, in connection with issuance of the preliminary injunction clearly reveal the court’s view that summary punishment by unions violates the statute. However, the crucial defect is that the provisions of the order contain no prohibitory language explicitly addressed to the summary punishment area. It follows that the language of the injunction did not prohibit the conduct which formed the basis for the contempt order.
The order of the district court will be reversed.