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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1737420/state-ex-rel-girard-v-percich/ ↗

Full Text

1,796 chars

Finally, we conclude that the practice of following violated the terms of the restraining order. There was abundant evidence of violence accompanying following episodes both before and after issuance of the restraining order. It was obvious from the testimony, and was manifested to petitioners by their conduct when subjected to it, that the customers were uniformly frightened and intimidated by the Union’s program of following. While it is true that the court did not specifically forbid following, it did forbid intimidation, harassment, and coercion of customers. The meaning of these terms is clear to one acting in good faith. The court was not required to denominate every type of prohibited conduct which would intimidate, harass and coerce customers. Use of generic terms was sufficient to give petitioners fair warning. If they questioned the permissibility of this practice, the proper course was a motion to modify the order, not reckless disobedience of its literal terms. The fact that the policy was designed in the abstract to be non-violent is irrelevant. Violence and fear of violence did occur as a direct result of this policy and the petitioners’ testimony that they were unaware of that fact is unworthy of belief. Nor is it relevant that the executive board members, themselves, did not engage in following. Those who direct and control the implementation of contemptuous activity so as to cause members of their organization to violate a court order may not evade a contempt citation by the circuity of their involvement. The role played by the members of the executive board in adopting and continuing the policy of following with full knowledge of the intimidation and violence it engendered is analogous to that of the leaders of the demonstration in Curtis v. Tozer,

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text