-
Permanent Injunctions
4-part showing:
- 1. “No adequate remedy at law.” (term of art; use it).
- --At law=money. Money will not remedy the tort.
- --Common --D is insolvent;
- --Harm impossible to measure in monetary terms (kennel killing dog);
- --Conduct is ongoing/repetitive.
- 2. Tort in question impinges on a property interest or protectable right.
- --Largely a formality. Modern courts, underlying tort right usually=protectable right.
- 3. Injunction is enforceable.
- --Negative injunctions easy to enforce via contempt.
- --Mandatory injunctions make courts cautious about questions of compliance. Look at:
- ---Complexity of the conduct ordered (tear down
- fence on neighbor’s land vs. installation of
- noise abatement walls).
- ---Time task will take (Court have to monitor
- ongoing compliance?)
- ---Outside jurisdiction?
- 4. Balance of hardships favors the P.
- --P must demonstrate that benefit to him outweighs harm to D.
-
Preliminary Injunctions
- Over and above showing for permanent injunction,
- 2-part showing:
- 1. Likely success on the merits.
- 2. P will suffer an irreparable injury in absence of PI.
-
Defenses to Permanent Injunctions
- Unclean Hands
- Laches
- First Amendment
-
Defenses to Permanent Injunctions
Unclean Hands
- D can show that P himself is guilty of some form of misconduct.
- (injunction sought against use of trade secrets, D shows that P stole the secrets to begin with)
-
Defenses to Permanent Injunctions
Laches
- Prejudicial delay. D shows that
- --because P waited to commence suit,
- --D assumed there was no issue, and
- --D thus detrimentally changed its position.
( Living next to factory for 3 years before bringing suit; factory defends that it expanded because it assumed you were ok with it).
-
Defenses to Permanent Injunctions
First Amendment
Prior restraints are deeply disfavored.
|
|
