Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
61. Did the court properly grant the TRO?
The US Attorney in the jurisdiction brought a federal civil action against the organization and its leader, seeking an injunction against protests that interfered with the base's operations. With the complaint, the US Attorney moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to «enjoin any blockade of the base's entrance or other disruption of base activity until the court can hear motions for a preliminary and a permanent injunction.» The US Attorney attached an affidavit certifying the unsuccessful efforts she had made to locate the organization and its leader and to notify them of the motion. The court immediately held a hearing and issued the TRO in a one-sentence order that did not describe the acts to be restrained but instead incorporated by reference the allegations of the complaint and the TRO motion.
Members of a political organization protested against US foreign policy by blocking the entrance to a military base. After several members were arrested, the organization's leader called for «even bigger demonstrations next week to halt operations at the base.»
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. A TRO may be issued without notifying the party to be enjoined if the moving party submits an affidavit certifying that reasonable efforts were made to give notice. Because the US Attorney submitted that certification along with the motion, no notice was required.
C is incorrect. Where damages would be inadequate to address the indicated harm, a court may grant a TRO. However, the TRO granted in this instance is improper because the court failed to state the reasons why it was issued and failed to detail the acts restrained as required by FRCP 65(d).
D is incorrect. Where imminent irreparable harm is threatened, a court may grant a TRO. However, the TRO granted in this instance is improper under FRCP 65(d) because the court failed to state the reasons for its issuance and failed to detail the acts restrained.