Also known as: restrain · restrains · restrained · restraining · restraints · restraint of trade · restraining order
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
4 senses
A judicial order that prohibits or limits specified conduct for a limited period. The order must state the date and hour of issuance, describe the injury and why it is irreparable, explain the absence of notice, and be promptly filed. It expires within fourteen days unless extended for good cause or by consent.
A judicial order that prohibits or limits specified conduct for a limited period. The order must state the date and hour of issuance, describe the injury and why it is irreparable, explain the absence of notice, and be promptly filed. It expires within fourteen days unless extended for good cause or by consent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The act of confining a person or limiting freedom of movement without lawful authority. Liability requires that the confined person know of the confinement or suffer harm from it. The restraint must substantially interfere with liberty and occur through force, threat, or deception.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A governmental restriction on expression imposed before the speech occurs. Such restraints are disfavored and carry a heavy burden of justification, typically requiring a showing of serious harm such as a threat to national security.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A limitation on the alienation, transfer, or competitive use of property or business interests. A spendthrift provision in a trust restrains both voluntary and involuntary transfers of a beneficiary's interest. An ancillary promise not to compete is unenforceable if the restraint exceeds what is needed to protect a legitimate interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The act of confining a person or limiting freedom of movement without lawful authority. Liability requires that the confined person know of the confinement or suffer harm from it. The restraint must substantially interfere with liberty and occur through force, threat, or deception.
A governmental restriction on expression imposed before the speech occurs. Such restraints are disfavored and carry a heavy burden of justification, typically requiring a showing of serious harm such as a threat to national security.
A limitation on the alienation, transfer, or competitive use of property or business interests. A spendthrift provision in a trust restrains both voluntary and involuntary transfers of a beneficiary's interest. An ancillary promise not to compete is unenforceable if the restraint exceeds what is needed to protect a legitimate interest.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Raven Logistics filed a verified complaint seeking to halt the port authority from revoking its early-morning berthing slot. The district court issued an ex parte order at 2 a.m. but omitted the issuance time, any description of irreparable injury, and an expiration date. The order was not filed until Monday. Because the order failed to satisfy the mandatory content and filing requirements, it was invalid from the outset.
The order must state the date and hour it was issued, describe the injury and why it is irreparable, explain why notice was not given, and be promptly filed. It expires within fourteen days unless extended.
Supporting sources
Raymond Ramos entered a locked storage room at Rising Sun Electronics to retrieve equipment. A supervisor closed and locked the door from outside, unaware that Ramos remained inside. Ramos slept through the night and discovered the confinement only the next morning. Because Ramos neither knew of nor was harmed by the brief confinement, no tort liability arose.
Federal agents obtained information that a kidnapping victim was being held inside a warehouse owned by Riverstone Manufacturing. They applied for a search warrant under the rule authorizing seizure of a person who is unlawfully restrained. The magistrate issued the warrant after finding probable cause that the victim remained confined inside.
There is no liability unless the confined person knows of the confinement or suffers harm from it. The rule requires awareness or actual injury before liability attaches.
Supporting sources
Radiance Media planned to publish troop-movement details obtained from a confidential source during active hostilities. The government sought an injunction to prevent publication, citing national-security risks. The court denied the injunction because the government could not meet the heavy burden required to justify a prior restraint on speech.
Prior restraints carry a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality and are permitted only when the government shows serious harm such as a threat to national security. The burden rests on the government to justify the restraint.
Supporting sources
Roberto Reyes created a trust for his daughter Rachel Ramirez that included a spendthrift provision. Rachel's judgment creditor attempted to garnish her interest to satisfy an unpaid debt. The clause prevented both voluntary assignment and involuntary transfer, so the creditor could not reach the trust assets.
Rajesh Rao sold his regional logistics business to Raven Logistics and agreed not to compete anywhere in the country for five years. The buyer sought to enforce the covenant after Rao accepted a similar role with a competitor in a distant state. Because the geographic and temporal scope exceeded what was necessary to protect the buyer's legitimate interests, the restraint was unenforceable.
It restrains both voluntary and involuntary transfers of a beneficiary's interest. Creditors cannot reach the interest, and the beneficiary cannot assign it away.
Supporting sources
It is unenforceable if the restraint is greater than needed to protect the promisee's legitimate interest or if the hardship to the promisor outweighs the benefit.
Supporting sources
…She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face, and an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the statutes. A three-judge District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to which the action was referred, held that the Does and Hallford had no…