The following excerpt is from Pliscou v. Holtville Unified School Dist., 411 F. Supp. 842 (S.D. Cal. 1976):
The temporary restraining order in this case fails to conform to the provisions of rule 65(d) and this court finds these terms to be mandatory. Alberti v. Cruise, 383 F.2d 268 (4th Cir. 1967). This restraining order is too broad to be given effect. The instant order cannot be said to apprise the defendants of what conduct is prohibited. If this court were to find these defendants in contempt for failure to adhere to the terms of the October 17th restraining order, it would be taking a draconian approach to the law.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.