This is an original habeas corpus proceeding in which Murle and Jane Blasingame challenged contempt findings for violating a 1983 permanent injunction that prohibited obstructing or interfering with access to a public roadway bordering their property and leading to another owner's land. The trial court held them in contempt and imposed jail time and fines after they installed a new fence, cattle guard, and sign, then issued a second contempt order when they did not remove the structures. The Supreme Court granted the writ, discharged the relators, and voided the contempt orders. It reasoned that the injunction was ambiguous and did not clearly or specifically prohibit the Blasingames' conduct, which did not impede travel on the roadway, and that court decrees must set out obligations in unambiguous terms to support contempt.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure