The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is an obstetrician and gynecologist with a private practice. P performs abortions at the Women's Medical Center and the Medical Care Center. Ds regularly demonstrated against abortion by picketing. Lawson (D) eventually found out where P lived. When Lawson (D) rang the doorbell, P's then-fourteen-year-old son answered the door. Lawson (D) told the boy to relay a message to his father to stop doing abortions. Mrs. Murray came to the door and told Lawson (D) to leave and not return. Lawson (D) left immediately. About a month later, Lawson (D) informed the police that he and approximately fifty other people planned to picket peacefully outside P's residence on Sunday. P sent his family away for the day, but he remained inside the house himself. Two police officers met the fifty-seven picketers at a nearby school, instructed them on basic picketing rules, and escorted them to the sidewalk in front of P's residence. The picketers walked in a single-file loop on the sidewalk in front of P's residence and in front of about ten surrounding houses. They carried placards that stated, among other things, 'Dr. Murray scars women and kills their unborn children,' 'Elrick Murray pre-born baby exterminator and nomad abortionist,' and they carried a placard that showed a decapitated infant with the caption 'Elrick Murray, abortionist.' The picketers spoke to several neighbors, including one teenager, whom they asked whether he knew that a killer lived in the neighborhood. Ps testified that the demonstration had the following effects: (1) it deprived the family of their usual Sunday family time; (2) it harmed P's ability to practice medicine because he was forced to remain home to manage his patients in labor in lieu of managing them at the hospital; (3) it caused P to curtail his professional work because he felt compelled to stay home more often; and (4) it caused Mrs. Murray to suffer from nervousness and depression. Ps filed suit in the Chancery Division seeking damages and injunctive relief against Ds and fictitiously-named others. The complaint charged Lawson (D) with trespass and charged all ds with disruption of P's use and enjoyment of their property, intrusion on their seclusion, damage to P's professional reputation and pecuniary interests, and deprivation of the right to privacy under the United States and the New Jersey Constitutions. The Chancery Division entered a temporary restraining order restricting the picketers from using the words 'murderer' or 'killer,' from referring to members of P's family by name, from carrying the sign with the decapitated fetus, and from hand-delivering written material to residents of the neighborhood. The order limited Ds' demonstrating to picketing by two persons, for one hour, every three weeks. One of P’s workplaces for abortions was burnt down by arson, and the other was subject to bomb threats. Lawson (D) and another picketer then protested in front of P's residence. P called the police. After they had arrived, P went outside and exchanged words, some of them heated, with the picketers. He returned to his house at the urging of the police, but then went outside again and took a swing at Lawson (D). P was later convicted of simple assault. After a final hearing, the Chancery Division entered a permanent injunction in July 1991, prohibiting 'Ds and all persons in active concert or participation with them * * * from picketing in any form, including parking, parading, or demonstrating in any manner, within 300 feet of P's residence * * *.' Ds appealed, claiming in part that the injunction is an impermissible prior restraint that violates Ds' free-speech rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the 300-foot restriction. The Appellate Division found that the injunction survives a free-speech challenge because it is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Dr. Boffard (P) also suffered similar incidents. The same panel of the Appellate Division that upheld the P injunction upheld paragraph one of the Boffard injunction, prohibiting Ds from protesting 'within the immediate vicinity' of the Boffard residence. The Appellate Division reasoned that the paragraph-one restriction is a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction. Ds appealed. Ds argue that the judiciary may not issue an equitable remedy without proof of violence or legal liability.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.