Enjoining Nonparties

<div> Throughout the past three centuries, courts inconsistently have answered the question of who may be bound by an injunction decree.&nbsp; In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, courts held that only parties to the injunction suit could be bound.&nbsp; Over time, courts held that this rule was too narrow in its application.&nbsp; Litigants seeking injunctions were not afforded sufficient protection because defendants could disobey the court simply by acting through nonparties. </div> <div> <br> </div>Eventually, many courts began to hold that the traditional scope of who could be bound by an injunction was too narrow.&nbsp; Courts established six categories of nonparties that could be help in contempt for the violation of an injunction decree: (1) agents of the enjoined party, (2) aiders and abettors of the enjoined party, (3) persons cognizant of the decree, (4) successors in interest of the enjoined party, (5) those coming into contact with a particular res, and (6) members of the same class in a class action suit. <br> &nbsp; <br> <div> Each of these categories reflects a common underlying policy conflict.&nbsp; On the one hand is the principle, rooted in due process,&nbsp; that a person should not be bound by an injunction decree unless she has had her day in court.&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand, strict application of this principle facilitates the circumvention of injunction decrees by permitting unscrupulous parties to act through non-parties, such as agents or successors, who are not named in the injunction. </div> <div> <br> </div>This article examines how courts have grappled with this underlying policy conflict in cases arising under each of the six categories.&nbsp; Each succeeding part of this article discusses one of the six categories of nonparties and provides possible solutions for the problems facing modern courts. <br>