De Bar - Equity

Front 1

eq -- equitable jurisdiction is based on?

Back 1

(1) Request for equitable remedy; (2) assertion of an equitable right; and (3) where there is no adequate remedy at law (e.g., damages speculative, legal remedy is impracticable).

Front 2

eq -- what is the cleanup doctrine?

Back 2

Chancery court may, at its discretion, exercise concurrent jurisdiction over a purely legal claim for which there is an adequate remedy at law, in the course of deciding other claims for which equity jurisdiction exists.
• NOT if equitable relief prayed for is merely appended to a fundamentally legal dispute as means of manufacturing jurisdiction

Front 3

eq -- elements of the laches defense?

Back 3

P knew of claim + unreasonable delay in bringing + prejudice to D

Front 4

eq -- when is the illegality defense a viable option?

Back 4

K itself is intrinsically illegal OR performance sought to be enforced is illegal.

Front 5

eq -- what is the gist of the unclean hands defense?

Back 5

P is guilty of inequitable conduct that relates directly to the matter in controversy.

Front 6

eq -- under what circumstances will the unconscionability defense be granted?

Back 6

“Shocks the conscience” - grossly inadequate consideration/unfair terms/unreasonable or disproportionate hardship/inducement by questionable biz practices

Front 7

eq -- elements of the equitable estoppel defense?

Back 7

one party induces another party to act + other party has no knowledge of truth + other party detrimentally relies

Front 8

eq -- when is a legal remedy considered adequate?

Back 8

matter of right + full, fair, and complete + as practical and prompt as an equitable remedy

Front 9

eq -- requirements for issuing a TRO?

Back 9

imminent threat of irreparable injury + reasonable probability that P will succeed on the merits + balance of hardships in P’s favor

Front 10

eq - reqs for issuing a preliminary injunction?

Back 10

imminent threat of irreparable injury + reasonable probability that P will succeed on the merits + balance of hardships in P’s favor

Front 11

eq -- requirements for issuing a permanent injunction?

Back 11

Actual success + irreparable harm + harm resulting from failure to issue an injunction outweighs the harm befalling the opposing party if the injunction is issued

Front 12

eq -- analysis for issuing injunctions when harm complained of is a tort?

Back 12

(1) identify tort; (2) Is there a protectable interest?; (3) Is legal remedy adequate?; (4) Balance hardships; (5) Does D have any defenses?; (6) Is enforcement feasible?

Front 13

eq -- requirements for granting remedy of specific performance?

Back 13

valid and enforceable K + essential terms are clear and unambiguous + requesting party performed all obligations + mutuality of obligation rendering SP not unconscionable (parties can and will perform) + inadequate remedy at law

Front 14

eq -- what is rescission?

Back 14

Results in cancellation or “unmaking” of agreement and attempts to return parties to status quo

Front 15

eq -- elements for misrep as a ground for rescission?

Back 15

pecuniary duty to provide accurate info + supply false info + no reasonable care in obtaining/communicating info + justifiable reliance + pecuniary loss

Front 16

eq -- elements for mistake as a ground for rescission

Back 16

both parties mistaken as to basic assumption + mistake materially affects + no assumption of risk of mistake.

Front 17

eq -- what is restitution?

Back 17

Requires D to pay P a sum of money which D acquired under an unjust enrichment or a windfall
• P doesn’t have to show he was injured by D’s conduct or that D’s conduct was unreasonable. Must just show an unjust enrichment on the part of D.

Front 18

eq -- elements of contempt?

Back 18

PJ + SMJ + person has notice of order + order is clear and definite + person is able to follow terms + violation proven to ct’s satisfaction.

Front 19

eq -- Class action reqs

Back 19

4 basic requirements Class so numerous that joinder is impracticable + Common questions of law and facts +Claims of class rep must be typical of the class members + Class rep must prove he is fit to represent
3 Special Requirements  Prosecution of separate actions would risk inconsistent adjudications + Party opposing class has refused to act, making injunctive relief appropriate for whole class + Common questions of law and fact arise and all class members get notice