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

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

In the course of student disturbances and disorders, the University (P) requested the aid of the Buffalo city police. A sizable number of the public police force moved onto the campus, where clashes with students ensued. Members of the P administration were barred from campus offices, and a basketball game was disrupted by students demanding the removal of the police officers. Ds were not party to the violent and disruptive actions leading to the injunction. P commenced an action against 13 named students and John Doe and Jane Doe for a permanent injunction. An order to show cause, which was coupled with a temporary restraining order, required the named students to show cause why a temporary injunction restraining certain conduct on the campus should not issue. No appearance was made on behalf of the students, and an order was made enjoining the students 'and all other persons receiving notice of this preliminary injunction, whether acting individually or in concert' (1) from acting within or adjacent to plaintiff's buildings in such unlawful manner as to disrupt or interfere with plaintiff's lawful and normal operations or unlawfully to interfere with ingress to or egress from such properties or otherwise to disrupt the lawful educational function of the university, and (2) from employing unlawful force or violence or the unlawful threat of force and violence against persons or property. Copies of the preliminary injunction were served by posting copies of it at various locations on the campus. The faculty senate of the university passed a resolution urging the acting president of the institution to order the withdrawal of the police from the campus. Ds acting individually and in concert with each other and in concert with others, with notice of the preliminary injunction, entered the office of the president of the university located on the campus and unlawfully refused to leave the office when asked to do so. Ds were not among the named defendants in the injunction action, were not parties to the application for the temporary injunction, and were never personally served with the order of March 5. P applied for an order of criminal contempt against Ds. The court granted the motion. Ds appealed.

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

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

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