Tag: contempt

April 8, 2026 Litigation, Social Media

Social media posts about divorce caused man to be found in contempt of court

social media ban

The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed an order holding a husband in contempt for violating a family-court ban on social media posts about his divorce case and the parties’ children.

Petitoner-wife asked the circuit court to hold respondent-husband in contempt, enforce the social media restrictions, and impose sanctions. She requested that the husband be punished for violating the court’s directives and that the court order remedial steps to stop further violations.

What the court ruled

The family court entered the requested relief and the husband sought review. On appeal, the court affirmed the contempt order. It held that the husband had not shown any error in the circuit court’s finding that he willfully violated the court’s oral and written directives barring social media posts about the children and the case. The court also declined to consider husband’s other challenges, including his First Amendment and overbreadth claims, because they were undeveloped and unsupported by legal authority and record citations.

Rationale

The appellate court concluded that the circuit court reasonably exercised its contempt power because the husband admitted posting a video after the oral ruling that barred posts about the children, and that recording included material from the hearing about custody-related recommendations. The court said this was enough notice and support for contempt. As to the rest of the appeal, the husband failed to present coherent, legally developed arguments, so those issues were not considered.

In re the marriage of Fox, 2026 WL 945666 (Wisc. Ct. App. April 7, 2026)

 

October 22, 2024 Social Media

Ex-wife held in contempt for posting on TikTok about her ex-husband

tiktok contempt

Ex-husband sought to have his ex-wife held in contempt for violating an order that the divorce court had entered. In 2022, the court had ordered the ex-wife to take down social media posts that could make the ex-husband identifiable.

The ex-husband alleged that the ex-wife continued to post content on her TikTok account which made him identifiable as her ex-husband. Ex-wife argued that she did not name the ex-husband directly and that her social media was part of her work as a trauma therapist. But the family court found that the ex-wife’s posts violated the previous order because they made the ex-husband identifiable, and also noted that the children could be heard in the background of some videos. As a result, the court held the ex-wife in contempt and ordered her to pay $1,800 in the ex-husband’s attorney fees.

Ex-wife appealed the contempt ruling, arguing that ex-husband did not present enough evidence to support his claim, and that she had not violated the order. She also disputed the attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the contempt finding, agreeing that her actions violated the order, but vacated the award of attorney fees due to insufficient evidence of the amount.

Three reasons why this case matters:

  • It illustrates the legal consequences of violating court orders in family law cases.
  • It emphasizes the importance of clarity in social media use during ongoing family disputes.
  • It highlights the need for clear evidence when courts are asked to impose financial sanctions such as attorney fees.

Kimmel v. Kimmel, 2024 WL 4521373 (Ct.App.Ky., October 18, 2024)

November 14, 2007 Contracts, Trademarks

Ownership of domain name grounds for civil contempt and award of attorney’s fees

But mere ownership of domain name, without “use,” was not enough to give rise to infringement.

Careylicensing, Inc. v. Erlich, No. 05-1194, 2007 WL 3146559 (E.D. Mo. October 25, 2007)

Plaintiff Carey International and defendant International Chauffeured Services are competitors in the limousine industry. Carey sued International back in 2005 for trademark infringement, and the parties settled the case. They entered into a consent judgment, which is, essentially, like a contract between the parties that was made an order of the court. The consent judgment prohibited, among other things, the defendant from owning any domain name containing the word “Carey.”

In February 2007, the plaintiff noticed that the defendant owned a domain name careylimousine.net. The plaintiff eventually went back into court, asking that the defendant be held in contempt for violating the consent judgment and, pursuant to the terms of the consent judgment, be awarded attorneys fees and “liquidated damages,” for breaching the agreement.

The court found that ownership of the domain name by the defendant warranted a contempt citation. It also found that that ownership was a breach that made an award of attorney’s fees proper. But the court declined to award liquidated damages.

The consent judgment provided that liquidated damages be awarded for any “infringement” of the plaintiff’s mark. But in this case, there was no infringement. The court found that merely owning the domain name, without having an active site there, was not a “use” in commerce as required by the Lanham Act. Without the requisite element of use, there could be no infringement.

Scroll to top