Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)

Citation
State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)
Parent Document
State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1977-08-30

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text

614 chars
Turning specifically to petitioners’ contentions, we will deal with the vagueness claim first. To comport with fundamental principles of fairness, it is essential that the restraining order fairly and precisely advise the individual of what conduct is forbidden. To support a charge of contempt for its disobedience, “an order will not be expanded by implication in the contempt proceeding but must be so specific and definite as to leave no reasonable basis for doubt as to its meaning.” G. v. Souder, supra at 885. See also State ex rel. City of Pacific v. Buford, 534 S.W.2d 819 (Mo.App.1976); Gerard v. Kodner,