Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
50 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Four factors for securing injunctions
|
Likelihood of success (or actual success) on Merits Irreparable injury Balance of Hardships
Public Interest |
|
|
Irreparable injury
|
• Deprivation of Constitutional rights are per se irreparable
• Trademark infringement is per se irreparable • Damage to the environment • Mere economic injury, no matter how great, is not enough to show irreparable harm. o Loss of goodwill and customer relationships are arguably sufficient to show irreparable harm. |
|
|
Formulaic approach to specific injunctions
|
Specific performance for contracts to sell land (Damages not sufficient with land because land is considered unique). Injunctions to prevent harrassment (i.e. Domestic abuse injunctions)
|
|
|
TROs
|
Same factors as preliminary injunctions.
|
|
|
How TROs differ from preliminary injunctions
|
• Less of showing
• Must show immediacy of the harm (like today or tomorrow) • No notice required but must explain why |
|
|
Bonds required for TRO and preliminary injunctions (and how different jurisdictions handle them)
|
Required by Section 65(c). Must be requested by defendant. Some states waive the bond requirement. Other states require the bond under 65(c) but leave the amount of the injunction to court discretion. It could even be a nominal amount.
|
|
|
Situations where a bond may not be required
|
Constitutional rights affected. Indigent Plaintiff, public interest Plaintiff. Environmental groups, civil rights, children.
|
|
|
Defense to injunctions
|
- Unclean Hands
- Laches -Equitable Estoppel |
|
|
Unclean Hands
|
Requires that the person seeking equity must have acted fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy at hand
|
|
|
Things to consider regarding unclean hands
|
The inequitable conduct must have immediate and necessary relation to the claim
When considering unclean hands the court looks solely at the conduct of the Plaintiff. |
|
|
Summary Contempt vs. Non-summary contempt
|
Summary contempt is inside the presence of a judge. Non-summary outside the presence of the judge
|
|
|
Civil Compensatory contempt vs. Civil Coercive Contempt
|
o Amount caused by damages to Plaintiff (compensatory fine)
o We are trying to get you to conform your conduct (coercive) |
|
|
Details about Civil Compensatory Contempt
|
ß Purpose to compensate the plaintiff for damages
ß Clear and Convincing Evidence ß Once paid the contempt is clear |
|
|
Details about Civil Coercive Contempt
|
The contempt can be a fine or confinemnt. The sanction will be removed with compliance and when your sanction crosses the line to punishment (Ex. journalist held for not testifying after the jury has expired) then it is considered punishment and therefore puntive.
|
|
|
When can you have a Punitive Contempt Sanction
|
Must have criminal procedural protections (jury trial, beyond reaonsable doubt standard)
|
|
|
Collateral Bar Rule
|
If you are found in contempt, the rule requires you to follow the injunction and go through the appeals process rather than challenge the constitutionality of the appeal itself.
|
|
|
Policy considerations when dealing with unclean hands
|
The court should not enforce the unclean hands defense when to do so would frustrate a substantial public interest.
The court has the discretion to not invoke Unclean Hands where he decides that the conduct is not the type of conduct which a court must punish in order to vindicate it's authority. |
|
|
Laches
|
Knowledge or reasonable opportunity to discover that a plaintiff has a cause of action and an Unreasonable delay in commencing the action that prejudices the other party
|
|
|
Laches and the SOL
|
o If the Plaintiff filed suit with the analogous limitations period, the strong presumption is that laches is inapplicable
o If suit is filed outside SOL courts often have presumed that laches is applicable. |
|
|
What to look for when examining whether Laches is applicable
|
o The length of delay
§ Measure from time of P’s knowledge or should have known o Whether Plaintiff’s delay was reasonable in light of analogous |
|
|
Elements of Equitable Estoppel
|
• An admission, statement or act that is inconsistent with the claim asserted.
• Action by the other party in reasonable reliance on the admission, statement or act. • Injury to that party when the first party is allowed to contradict or repudiate the admission statement or act |
|
|
When can silence lead to equitable estoppel?
|
ß A party knows what is occurring and would be expected to speak, if he wished to protect his interest, his acquiescence manifests his tacit consent.
|
|
|
When are TROs appealable
|
TROs are generally not appealable. However, look at the issue whether TRO has effect of a preliminary or permanent injunction. This can occur when the TRO is allowed to extend beyond the statutory time limit (10 days with a 10 day extension for good cause).
|
|
|
When are preliminary injunctions appealable?
|
Appealable as interlocutory order under 1292
o Some states have authorized appellate jurisdiction over such rulings only in extraordinary circumstances where the appellant has been deprived of a substantial right which would be lost should review not come before a judgment. |
|
|
When are permanent injunctions appealable?
|
They are appealable under section 1292 as a final decision.
|
|
|
Purposes of damage relief
|
o Compensation for legal recognized losses
o Deterrence of wrongful conduct |
|
|
Standard of proof to show the fact of damages
|
o Reasonable certainty as to fact of Damages and Causation
|
|
|
Standard of proof as to the amount of damages
|
Reasonable certainty w/ risk of uncertainty falling on the Defendant
|
|
|
o Johnson v. Baker
|
Damages cannot be awarded when they are too speculative to form a sound basis for measurement. Chick going to school…didn’t know if she’d continue.
|
|
|
o Lewis River
|
Loss can be established in any manner which is reasonable under the circumstances. (Sod w/ Weeds)
|
|
|
Other things to consider in determining the amount of damages
|
o It will be enough if the evidence shows the extent of the damages as a matter of just and reasonable inference, although the result may be only approximate.
o The wrongdoer is not entitled to complain that damages can’t be measured with exactness. (Story case) • Can’t use risk of uncertainty to leave the court guessing o Plaintiff has duty to mitigate damages |
|
|
Hadley Rule
|
Determine damages by showing what would have reasonably been contemplated by the parties at the time of contract
|
|
|
o Collateral Source Principle as it pertains to Medicaid write offs (three approaches)
|
• Reasonable value of services (total amount billed)
• Actual amounts paid (Whatever you actually paid) • Benefit of the Bargain (If the Plaintiff paid consideration for the benefit then the whole amount is recoverable) |
|
|
Collateral Source Principle and gratuitious payments
|
• Collateral Source still applies
• Strong public policy favoring charity o Private generosity = less state burden |
|
|
Can a Plaintiff recover for the value of home services?
|
A majority of jurisdictions recognize that a plaintiff may recover the value of those services.
|
|
|
New Business Rule
|
Old Approach: Lost profits generally are not recoverable because they are too speculative
Modern trend: You can award lost profits for a new business when they can be proved with reasonable certainty. |
|
|
Measure of Compensatory damages
|
o General – Losses that naturally and necessarily result from the breach or tortuous misconduct.
o Special – Peculiar to the particular plaintiff o Jurisdictional split as to whether you need general damages to get special damages |
|
|
General damages generally
|
(ie. Pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life)
Contract = those things that were contemplated by the contract |
|
|
Special damages generally
|
Natural but not necessary damages (ie. Medical expenses/Loss of earning potential)
Federal Rule 9(c) Specials must be specifically plead Contract = Foreseeable and within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the breach. |
|
|
Measure of Tort Damages
|
Compensation to Make Whole to Restore Plaintiff to pre-Tort Condition
|
|
|
ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE:
|
Pure economic harm without physical harm to person or property (other than the product itself) is not recoverable. In contract law, there must be privity between Plaintiff and Defendant to recover for economic harm.
|
|
|
Reasoning behind the Economic Loss Doctrine
|
Protect freedom to contract, maintain differences between Tort and K, Encourage parties best situated to assess risk of loss and allocate risk.
|
|
|
What to consider when looking at the Economic Loss Doctrine
|
• When dealing with component parts, look at whether the component part has been so integrated into the larger unit that it loses its separate identity.
o If it keeps its separate identity, so that it may be readily separated from the overall unit, the component manufacturer may be strictly liable for damages to the larger unit. |
|
|
Exceptions to the Economic Loss Doctrine
|
• When dealing with component parts, look at whether the component part has been so integrated into the larger unit that it loses its separate identity.
o If it keeps its separate identity, so that it may be readily separated from the overall unit, the component manufacturer may be strictly liable for damages to the larger unit. |
|
|
When is Prejudgment interest appropriate?
|
It is appropriate in tort, K and statutory cases.
Some states restrict prejudgment interest |
|
|
Section 1961
|
Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court…Such interest shall be calculated from the date of entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant caturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
|
|
|
Factors to consider when looking at awards of prejudgment interest.
|
• The need to fully compensate the wronged party for actual damages
• Considerations of fairness • The remedial purpose of the statute • Other general principals deemed relevant by the court. |
|
|
Approaches for Accounting for inflation (Straham v. UPS)
|
Incorporate inflation into future earnings and discount at market interest rate
Does not consider inflation but uses a market interest rate – inflation rate Real interest method: Assume that the market rate will exceed inflation by 1 ½ to 3 percent. Total offset method: Inflation is going to equal any discount so they don’t do anything. |
|
|
Offset the Benefits Rule
|
When the defendant’s tortious conduct has harmed the plaintiff or to his property and in so doing has conferred a special benefit to the interest of the plaintiff that was harmed, the value of the benefit conferred is considered in mitigation of damages, to the extent that this is equitable. §920 Restatement second of torts.
|
|
|
Chaffee case
|
Wrongful Birth…blessing of children offsets the damages
|
