PREVENTATIVE INJUNCTIONS (CB Chapter 3, p. 44, EE 140)

PREVENTATIVE INJUNCTIONS (CB Chapter 3, p. 44, EE 140)

1. REQUIREMENTS (see breakdown below)

1. INADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY AND/OR IRREPARABLE INJURY

   1. LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE VIOLATION

   2. BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORS THE PLAINTIFF

   3. PUBLIC INTEREST SERVED

1. ADEQUACY OF LEGAL REMEDY

1. MUST IDENTIFY THE LEGAL REMEDY

   1. MUST ESTABLISH INADEQUACY

1. DAMAGES WILL NOT GIVE COMPLETE RELIEF

2. REPEATED ACTS

3. MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS

4. LEGAL REMEDY NOT COLLECTIBLE

5. DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY

1. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

1. THURSTON V. BALDI [CB 45]

   1. THE BORROWED LOT [CB 47]

   2. WHEELOCK V. NOONAN [CB 47] D obtains a license from P to place rocks on his lot. Ordinarily, courts won’t weild their power to redress a trespass, but here, the trespass was a continuing one and a multiplicity of suites at law was involved in the legal remedy.

1. IRREPARABLE HARM [Gilbert 34]

1. COURTS DIFFER ON WHETHER THIS IS A SEPARATE ELEMENT

   1. THREAT OF HARM MUST BE REAL -- ENCOMPASSES THE FUTURE HARM REQUIREMENT. If tort is complete, there is no threat of continuing harm and this element is not met.

   2. CAN BE USED TO CREATE A NEW SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT

   3. REMEDIAL V. SUBSTANTIVE EQUITY

   4. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

1. COMPUTE-A-CALL, INC. V. TOLLESON

   1. K MART V. ORIENTAL PLAZA [CB 51]. OPI breached lease agreement not to build more than 10,000 SF of retail space in front of K-Mart. Harm was not reparable by mere damages because of injury to K-mart’s presentation of its store to the public.

   2. MUEHLMAN V. KEILMAN [CB 53] D running diesel engines outside of P’s bedroom window, causing a nuisance. Irreparable injury can mean that for which no pecuniary standard exists for measurement of damages.

   3. THE WANDERING GOLF BALL [CB 53]

1. Likelihood of future harm [EE 143-45]

1. Ripeness: must be sufficient evidence that D will engage in the prohibited conduct

   1. Mootness: D’s propensity is negated where D previously engaged in the conduct, but has ceased the conduct and says he won’t do it anymore.

1. BALANCING THE EQUITIES [EE 151-53]

1. EQUITABLE RELIEF IS DISCRETIONARY

   1. BALANCE MUST FAVOR THE PLAINTIFF

   2. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

1. TRIPLETT V. BEUCKMAN [CB 57] . D’s replaced bridge to an island with a causeway. P had an easement to use the bridge and the lake around the island and sued to remove the causeway and put the bridge back. P’s are entitled to the bridge, but maybe not a 60 foot one. Remanded to trial court to balance equities and determine what D must do.

   1. GALELLA V. ONASSIS [CB 62]. Photographer jumping out of bushes, etc. to get photos of Onassis and her children, committing several torts. Court balances P’s right to lawful employment and movement with Secret Service’s need to protect D. Orders prohibiting harassment cannot be vague.

   2. THE HARASSING SUITOR

1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

1. WILL THE INJUNCTION SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

   1. DOES THE ORDER COMPROMISE TRIBUNAL INTEGRITY?

   2. CASES

1. Graham v. Cirocco [CB 72]. Non-competition agreement between two colorectal surgeons is modified to eliminate enforcement of a 25-mile restriction to practice within an area because it would result in shortage of specialists needed

2. U.S. V. RAINBOW FAMILY [CB 75, Note 2]. Public interest includes protecting a national forest from a group’s annual gathering that constitutes a public nuisance (disturbances, nudity, unsanitary health conditions, drugs, traffic congestion)

   1. BOOMER V. ATLANTIC CEMENT [CB 77]. Nuisance found from a plant’s dirt, smoke and vibrations, but economic consequences to D are much greater and over 300 people are employed there. N.Y. rule: such a nuisance will be enjoined although marked disparity be shown in economic consequences between the effect of the injunction and the effect of the nuisance. Court weighs both sides, no good remedy, chooses to grant vacate injunction upon D’s payment of P’s permanent damages.

   2. THE ENCROACHMENT [CB 83]

   3. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer’s Cooperative [CB 85]. Whether there is a medical necessity exception to prohibitions that allow California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 to supercede federal law. Court sitting in equity cannot ignore the judgment of Congress. In weighing the advantages and disadvantages of an injunction, it may only consider the extraordinary remedy, not balancing advantages of enforcement of a statute. (Right vs. remedy).

1. ISSUES IN INJUNCTIONS [EE 154-55]

1. PLAINTIFF WILL BE HARMED

   1. SCOPE MUST BE PROPER

   2. Can’t prohibit constitutional right, such as free speech

   3. Preserving D’s right to jury trial

   4. Concern over restraining labor/involuntary servitude

   5. Burden on the court

   6. Caveat: if an injunction is authorized by statute, many courts do not require that traditional equity requirements be met. The injured party need only show violation of the statutory requirements. [Gilbert 35]

1. 
   
   Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> womenandlaw
   uploads -> For want of a nail
   uploads -> Police Militarization
   uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
   uploads -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program
   uploads -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings
   uploads -> Medical Radiography Program
   uploads -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
   uploads -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
   womenandlaw -> Introduction To Criminal Procedure Three major topics
   womenandlaw -> Strict liability
   
   
   
   Download 200.81 Kb.
   
   Share with your friends: