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;
94 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Definition: In Personam |
When a court orders a Defendant to do, or refrain from doing, some act |
|
|
Pardee v. Camden Lumber Co. |
- Injunction prevented cutting of timber on tract of land - Generally, damage to real property is irreparable and damage remedies are inadequate. When destruction of something irreparable is threatened, equity will intervene. |
|
|
Fortner v. Wilson |
- Unless there is something unique in the article sold, or something about it that would prevent money damages from giving full relief, specific performance will not be granted |
|
|
Merrill Lynch v. Callahan |
For prelim inj relief, party must show... (a) that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and (b) either i. a likelihood of success on the merits, or ii. sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation |
|
|
Georg v. Animal Defense League |
- Judge decides that an injunction isn't the best remedy and that damages are the better option. - a court may deny equitable relief through its own discretion |
|
|
Unclean Hands Doctrine |
- Equitable defense- a court will not provide aid in the commission of a wrong or relieve a party from the consequences of a wrong - To raise this defense a party must show a direct nexus between the misconduct and the right that is at the basis of the suit - successful defenses using unclean hands allow the party to prevail without going into the merits |
|
|
Salomon Smith Barney v. Vockel |
- Unconscionable act must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity that plaintiff seeks - Look solely to the conduct of the plaintiff to determine unclean hands defense |
|
|
Seagirt Realty v. Chazanof |
Creates qualifier to unclean hands doctrine- Only applies to a Plaintiff who has acted unjustly in the very transaction of which he complains |
|
|
American University v Wood |
Unclean hands doctrine can be applied to plaintiff that attempts fraud upon the public |
|
|
Unconscionability |
when contract terms are too harsh, courts will not enforce. See Campbell Soup v. Wentz |
|
|
Laches |
Any 1) reasonable delay in prosecuting action by plaintiff that 2) causes prejudice to defendants. Prejudice must be related to the delay
|
|
|
Stone v Williams |
Laches: Time delay between circumstances giving rise to legal action by plaintiff and the legal action is a determinative factor |
|
|
City of Eustis v. Firster |
Test of laches - has there been a delay which has resulted in injury, embarrassment, or disadvantage of any person, particularly the defendant. |
|
|
Nahn v. Soffer |
Elements of Laches - length of delay -reason for delay -how the delay affected defendant -overall fairness or permitting the assertion of the claim |
|
|
Estoppel |
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect will induce reliance is binding when injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise - offensive use = promissory estoppel - defensive use = equitable estoppel |
|
|
Feinberg v Pfeiffer Co. |
Promissory estoppel- a promise which promisor should reasonably expect will induce reliance is binding when injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise |
|
|
US v GA Pacific (4 elements of equitable estoppel) |
1. Party to be estopped must know the facts 2. Party must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must act in a way that the other party would be reasonable to expect a certain result 3. Other party must be ignorant of the facts 4. Other party relies on conduct to its detriment |
|
|
Dairy Queen v. Wood |
- Scotus says that clean up doctrine (once a Court hears a case in equity it can decide any incidental issues without a jury) is unconstitutional |
|
|
Ross v Bernhard |
7th amendment right to jury extends to corporations. Once equitable issues are decided by judge, legal issues sent to jury |
|
|
Ex parte Thorn |
Piercing the corporate veil is an equitable doctrine, so that question can be resolved by judge then other matters sent to jury. |
|
|
Definition- Contempt |
An offense against the dignity of the Court. Refusal to obey a court order is most common in remedies |
|
|
US v. PATCO |
DISTINGUISHES 2 TYPES OF CONTEMPT -Criminal contempt = vindication of court's authority by punishment through fine or imprisinment -Civil contempt = coercing compliance with court order or compensating complainant for losses sustained by non-complaince |
|
|
4 Types of Contempt |
- Civil Contempt: to coerce compliance of a court order and compensate complainant for losses due to non-compliance - Criminal Contempt: to punish for disobedience - Direct Contempt: committed in presence of court - Indirect Contempt: committed outside court |
|
|
Yates v. US |
Test for civil vs criminal contempt. Can person purge the contempt? - if yes, then coercive and civil - if no, then punitive and criminal |
|
|
FRCP 42(a) |
Civil Contempt: (a)(1) Court must give party notice - (a)(1)(a) state time and place of trial - (a)(1)(b) allow defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense - (a)(1)(c) state essential facts constituting charges of contempt and describe it as such |
|
|
FRCP 42(b) |
Court may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies |
|
|
In Re Yengo |
- Direct Contempt does not require notice or order to show good cause. Elements... 1) act or omission must occur in presence to the court so the judge will not need further evidence of contemptuous behavior 2) the act must impact adversely the authority of the court - Indirect contempt requires notice and an order for arrest or an order to show cause |
|
|
Bloom v Illinois |
Criminal contempt subject to imprisonment for longer than 6 months is a crime to which the jury trial provisions of the Constitution apply. |
|
|
Collateral Bar Rule |
An order issued by a court with in personam and subject matter jurisdiction must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings and cannot be attacked in the contempt proceedings. |
|
|
US v. United Mine Workers |
An order issued by a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed. (Collateral Bar Rule). Violations of an order are punishable as criminal contempt even though the order is set aside on appeal or the basic action is moot. |
|
|
Walker v City of Birminghame |
2 exceptions to collateral bar rule 1) order is transparently invalid 2) there is unreasonable delay |
|
|
In Re Providence Journal Co. |
Defines Transparent Validity (1 of 2 exceptions to Collateral Bar Rule) - If the court reviewing the order finds the order to have any pretense to validity at the time it was issued, the reviewing court should enforce the collateral bar rule. |
|
|
Preliminary Injunction |
issued at the beginning of litigation and is designed to prevent irreparable harm during suit |
|
|
TRO |
Designed to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be held on whether to grant preliminary injunction |
|
|
For TRO or Prelim Inj, Plaintiff must show |
1. Immediate and irreparable harm sill result absent the injunction - For Prelim Inj = Injury will occur during pendency of lawsuit - TRO = Injury will occur before a hearing can be heard on whether to grant the P.I> |
|
|
FRCP 65 (a) |
(a) Preliminary Injunctions 1. Notice- no prelim inj shall be issued w/o notice to adverse party 2. Court can order that the trial be advanced based on the injunction. Consolidated - also means that inj evidence can be re-used at trial/ becomes part of the record |
|
|
FRCP 65 (b) |
(b) Temporary Injunctions - Can be granted w/o notice to other party based on complaint/accompanying affidavit - Counsel MUST show that it attempted to contact opposing party - if granted w/o notice, P must define injury and state why injury is irreparable - lasts for 10 days unless good cause is shown for extending it - reason for extension added to record |
|
|
Hughes v Cristofane |
To obtain a TRO using FRCP 65, P Must show... 1) unless TRO issues, P will suffer irreparable harm 2) the hardship P will suffer absent the order outweighs any hardship the D's would suffer should TRO issue 3) P is likely to succeed on their claims 4) That issuance of the order will cause no substantial harm to the public 5) that they have no adequate remedy at law |
|
|
Washington Capitols BB Club v. Barry |
- Purpose of prelim inj is to maintain the status quo before litigants pending final determination of the case - For P to succeed in a motion for prelim inj, P must show... - Reasonable probability of success on merits - Irreparable damage would result from a denial of the motion |
|
|
Washington Capitols BB Club v Barry Con't |
3 things analyzed by court in this case 1) status quo- what was it? (last peaceable uncontested status between parties 2) Probability of success @ trial (P does not need to prove case with absolute certainty, just show that issue is sufficiently serious and burden of showing prob success is lower when balance of hardship tips decidedly toward movant 3) Showing of irreparable Injury |
|
|
Am Hosp Supply Corp v Hosp Products Ltd. |
- Posner's formula for granting Prelim Inj's - Grant injunction only if the harm to P if the injunction is denied, multiplied by the probability that the grant would be in error (D wins at trial) exceeds the harm to the D if the inj would be in error - Left side of equation = probability of erroneous denial weighed by cost of denial to P - Right side of equation = probability of erroneous grant weighed by the cost of granting to D |
|
|
Hearing re Injunctions |
- In general, judicial orders should only be issued after contested hearing, but TRO is exception - FRCP 65 allows ex parte TRO |
|
|
Ex Parte TRO |
Per FRCP 65, Applicant must show 1) failure to issue TRO will result in irreparable harm 2) applicant shows sufficiently that notice should not be required |
|
|
In re Vuitton Et Fils, S.A. |
FRCP provides that a TRO may be granted ex parte if... 1) failure to issue TRO will result in irreparable harm 2) applicant shows sufficiently that notice should not be required |
|
|
Persons Bound by Inj's |
- Inj's typically only bind parties or entities involved in litigation - Exception: 5 categories on non-parties that can be bound... 1) agents of the enjoined party 2) aiders and abettors of the enjoined party 3) successors in interest of the enjoined party 4) those coming into contact with a particular res 5) members of the same class in a class action suit |
|
|
Notice Requirement for TRO's and Prelim Inj's |
FRCP 65(d) provides that a TRO or Prelim Inj is binding only on those who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise |
|
|
Cape May & Shellinger's Landing RR v. Johnson |
Notice = 1) notice must proceed from a source entitled to credit 2) notice must inform the defendant clearly and plainly what act must be abstained |
|
|
Midland Steel Products, Co. v. UAW |
To know of order = to know of its terms Constructive notice amounts to actual notice |
|
|
Vermont Women's Health Ctr. v. Operation Rescue |
P's must show that D's acted in concert or in cooperation with named parties, that the order was specific and unambiguous, and that they violated the order with actual knowledge of its mandate. |
|
|
Bond Requirement for TRO |
FRCP 65(c) (and usually state law) requires that a party that obtains a TRO must usually post security to protect D against loss. - Court sets amt. - Gov't Plaintiffs not required to bond |
|
|
Coyne-Delany Co., Inc. v. Capital Redevelopment Board |
- Court should use 54(d) and 65(c) to determine costs or inj damages. - Factors in setting bond decision 1) resources of parties 2) D's efforts to mitigate damages 3) outcome of underlying suit - Bond is limit of damages opposing party can claim for wrongful inj. |
|
|
Stays (of TRO's) |
FRCP 65(b) provides that a party enjoined by an ex parte TRO may appear and move for dissolution of the TRO within 2 days. |
|
|
Jurisdiction Over Appeals |
- Rulings on requests for TRO's and P.I.'s are interlocutory and are not ordinarily appealable (exception- 28 USC 1292(a)) - Permanent Inj's are final orders and are appealable - 28 USC 1292(a): Courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction over appeals of interlocutory orders - TRO's generally not appealable b/c they are for a short duration. |
|
|
Pre-Appeal Relief, forms |
Can take 1 of 2 forms 1) stay of inj. pending trial (if appealing issuance) 2) Inj. pending appeal (if appealing denial of inj) |
|
|
Pre-Appeal Relief, statutes |
Governed by FRCP 62(c) and FR Appellate Procedure 8 |
|
|
FRCP 62(c) |
Provides that once a Court has granted appeal of an injunction, the court can decide whether to stay or issue inj during pendency of appeal using its discretion. |
|
|
FRAP 8 |
a) stay must be sought in District Court first - must have affidavits accompanying mtn to stay in appellate court b) Relief available in Ct App may be conditioned upon filing bond or other appropriate security in Dist Ct. |
|
|
How Courts have interpreted FRAP 8 and FRCP 62(c) |
1. Party must seek pre-appeal relief in trial ct., unless it is impracticable 2. Decision of the trial ct. is appealed to a motions panel, usually consisting of 3 ct app justices, or one "on call" judge for emergencies |
|
|
Washington Metro Area Transit Commission v Holiday Tours |
Standard for appealing Injunctions. Elements... 1) Has petitioner made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on merits of its appeal? 2) Has petitioner shown that, without such relief, it will be irreparably injured? 3) Would issuing the stay substantially harm other parties? 4) What is the public interest? |
|
|
Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, LLC |
- Decision to grant or deny inj relief rests within the equitable discretion of District Ct Judge - 4 factor test for Permanent Inj: P must show... 1) P suffered an irreparable injury 2) remedies at law are inadequate 3) Considering the balance in hardships, a remedy in equity is warranted 4) Public interest isn't dis-served by a permanent inj |
|
|
Framing the Injunction- FRCP ___ |
FRCP 65(d) imposes limits on the form, scope, and content of injunctions - Order must state reason for issuing inj - Shall be specific and describe with no reference to the complaint or other document the act or acts sought to be restrained |
|
|
Murray v. Lawson |
Injunctions must be specific in terms. "Immediate vicinity of" not specific enough |
|
|
Peggy Lawton Kitchens v. Hogan |
Contempt = clear and undoubted disobedience of a clear and unequivocal command |
|
|
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc, |
- When evaluating content neutral injunctions, time, place, and manner restrictions aren't sufficiently rigorous. - MUST ASK WHETHER THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF THE INJUNCTION BURDEN NO MORE SPEECH THAN NECCESSARY TO SERVE SIGNIFICANT GOV'T INTEREST |
|
|
Vanneck v Vanneck |
When the claim of a sister state is collorable, the Court must heed the statutory command to defer adjudicating the dispute and communicate with the foreign court |
|
|
Younger v Harris |
A federal court may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in state court except as expressly authorized by an act of congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgment. - Even irreparable harm is insufficient unless it is both great and immediate |
|
|
Exceptions to rule in Younger v Harris |
Fed Ct can intervene in state court proceeding if... 1) prosecution is in bad faith 2) where prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against the individual 3) where the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional |
|
|
Mitchum v. Foster |
"Expressly authorized" exception to the anti-injunction act- Fed Courts can enjoin state court action when a federal right or remedy that is enforceable in a federal court is frustrated by state court proceeding. |
|
|
Missouri v. Jenkins |
Structural Injunctions- Federal Judges can't make fundamentally political decisions as to which priorities are funded or staffed, which educational goals are to be sought, and which values are to be taught. |
|
|
NY Times Co. v. United States |
Gov't may only exercise prior restraint of the press when the nation is at war and over very specific things- like when ships are due to sail with troops and supplies (and things of like specificity) |
|
|
General Principle of Restitution |
Prevent defendants from retaining benefits unjustly derived from Plaintiffs (aka prevent unjust enrichment) |
|
|
Restitution- Analysis |
1) Identify a benefit (any kind of advantage) 2) Under circumstances where it is unjust to retain the benefit 3) unjust when Judge says it is unjust (subjective) - Use this when other party is broke and you "want their stuff" |
|
|
Frambach v. Dunihue |
- Purchase money or agreement is necessary to claim part of the house - While it is unjust that he gave more than them re: repairs to the house, he is only entitled to an equitable lien on the property. Cannot charge the owner of compel transfer of land |
|
|
Pyeatte v. Pyeatte |
To show unjust enrichment, Plaintiff must show... 1) defendant received a benefit 2) by receipt of that benefit, defendant was unjustly enriched at their expense 3) Unjust enrichment occurred in circumstances where, in good conscience, defendant should make compensation. - HERE, Unjust enrichment occurred when... 1) extraordinary or unilateral effort 2) Inured solely to benefit one party |
|
|
Iacomini v. Liberty Insurance Co. |
When a court assesses damages in an unjust enrichment case, the focus is not upon the cost to the P, but rather it is upon the value of what was actually received by the D's |
|
|
Constructive Trust |
(Fletcher v. Nemitz) - Arises by operation of law against a party who, by fraud, actual or constructive, by duress or abuse of confidence, by commission of wrong, or by form of unconscionable/unequitable behavior either has obtained the legal right to property which he ought not, in good conscience, hold and enjoy |
|
|
Equitable Lien |
Similar to constructive trust, but instead of requiring defendant to hold the property in trust, the court imposes a lien against property as security for P's interest |
|
|
Jones v. Sacramento Savings and Loan Assoc. |
When to apply equitable lien... General doctrine of equity permits imposition of an equitable lien where the claimant's expenditure has benefitted another's property under circumstances entitling the claimant to restitution. |
|
|
Leyden v. Citicorp Industrial Bank |
An equitable lien is good against all persons who acquired an interest with knowledge or notice of P's equitable lien, but it would not be good against an unknowing or un-noticed party. |
|
|
Tracing generally- application |
1. Identify property of another 2. was property acquired knowingly or wrongfully? 3. exchanged for other property? - every time property "morphs," restitution treats it like it is owned by original, but - bona fide purchaser wipes out interest of original |
|
|
Restatement of Restitution Section 202 |
(G&M Motor Co v. Thompson) - Where a person wrongfully disposes of property of another knowing that the disposition is wrongful and acquires in exchange other property, the other is entitled to enforce a constructive trust of the property so acquired |
|
|
G&M Motor Co v. Thompson |
Where the wrongdoer co-mingles wrongfully and rightfully acquired funds, the owner of wrongfully acquired funds is entitled to share proportionately in acquired property to the extent of his involuntary contribution |
|
|
Constructive Trusts and Equitable Liens- rules re: priority |
- A person who has been defrauded is allowed a preferred claim over general creditors (In re Radke) - Constructive trusts and equitable liens get precedence over unsecured creditors who can go after what's left (Cunningham v Brown) |
|
|
Mattson v Commercial Credit Business Loans, Inc. What is a bona fide purchaser? |
One who has no reasonable grounds to suspect that the person from whom he buys an article did not have good title. |
|
|
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act |
- 28 USC 2201-02 - Creation of a remedy (a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction a court, upon the filing of an appropriate filing, may declare the rights and other legal relations between parties and that declaration will have the force and effect of a final judgment. (b) further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights were determined by declaratory judgment |
|
|
United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell |
3 elements needed for a Court to issue a declaratory judgment - definite and concerted dispute (hypothetical threat is not enough) - Adverse legal interest - Sufficient need for decision |
|
|
Skelly Oil Co. v Phillips Petroleum Co |
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act expands the remedy but doesn't expand the jurisdiction of courts - Gives fed courts the ability to exercise a remedy - Doesn't create a federal right - District Courts MAY is not an entitlement to a party, Ct. MAY makes use of declaratory judgments discretionary |
|
|
Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v Patterson |
Courts should be unwilling to interfere when identical state actions are pending (when using state law in diversity cases) |
|
|
Penthouse International, Ltd. v Meese |
Where it is uncertain that declaratory relief will benefit the party alleging injury, the Court will normally refrain from exercising its equitable powers. This is especially true where the Court can avoid the premature adjudication of constitutional claims. |
|
|
Dealers Hobby, Inc. v Marie Ann Linn Realty Co. |
- Plaintiff's damages are limited to its actual loss - in this context, fair rental value as they were warranted vs fair rental value of premises during occupancy |
|
|
Chatlos Systems, Inc. v NCR Corp |
Correct measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been warranted. (Benefit of the bargain) |
|
|
Liberty National Life Insurance Co. v Sanders |
In cases involving fraud, damages will be fixed by an amount which would place the defrauded person in the position they would occupy if the representations had been true |
|
|
Consequential Damages |
Damages a party can prove occurred because of the failure of one party to meet a contractual obligation. Goes beyond the contract itself and into actions garnished from failure to fulfill |
|
|
Matsuyama v. Birnbaum |
Loss of Chance Medical Malpractice- the loss of chance doctrine views a person's prospects for surviving a serious medical condition as something of value, even if the possibility of recovery was less than prior to physician's tortious conduct |
