The Scope of Preventive Injunctions � Possible Options in

Document Sample
The Scope of Preventive Injunctions � Possible Options in Powered By Docstoc
					The Ripeness Requirement In the Context of Uncertain
   What do P’s in Nicholson seek to enjoin?

   Does D not show a propensity to do this?

   Then why is the injunction “unripe”?

   How is this situation different from Al Murbati?
Enjoining Lawful Conduct due to Potential Unlawful

   Court doesn’t per se preclude the notion of issuing this injunction.
    But ripeness will always be a problem and evidentiary support an

   What kind of evidence would P need to strengthen the argument
    that the feared harms are ripe?
        Can you make a comparison to Brainard (p. 281)?
Enjoining Lawful Conduct Due to Possible Unlawful
Consequences – Nuisance Cases

  Comes up most often in “anticipatory nuisance” cases

          Anticipatory nuisance = use of property is not per se unlawful
          but under these circumstances and at this location the use of
          the property is unreasonable and a nuisance.

  What are the standards for injunctions like that in Nicholson?
       Many different formulations:
          “Nuisance is to a reasonable degree certain”
          “Nuisance will necessarily occur”
          “There is a strong probability of a nuisance”
Another Twist on Enjoining Lawful Conduct – Pepsico, Inc.
v. Redmond (p. 284)
   What is the threatened harm if Redmond moves to Quaker?

   Is there any doubt in the court’s mind as to whether this harm is
    ripe? Why?

   What specific order does Pepsico seek though – do they just seek
    to prevent the feared harm? Why does the order go beyond the
    feared harm?
Prophylactic Injunctions & the “Rightful Position” Rule
   Pepsico takes us into the realm of the “prophylactic” injunction.

   Defined:      Injunctions that aim to restore P to her rightful
    position but the terms of which impose conditions requiring
    actions of D that seem to go beyond P’s rightful position.

       Sometimes – the tailoring of an injunction is broader than the actual
        harm feared.     If one can classify the injunction as a legitimate
        prophylactic injunction, then a broader injunction may be ok

   What is the line between a necessary prophylactic
    injunction and one that is too intrusive or overly
Prophylactic Injunctions - Wilson Metal Casket (n.5 p. 288)
   Wilson (owner of company) followed several women to isolated areas of
    the company and sexually fondled & propositioned them, causing at least
    two of them to quit due to the advances and another’s husband to think
    that his wife was having an affair with Wilson until she told him the true
        Lower court found a hostile environment under Title VII and issued order barring
         him from “asking any female employee to accompany him off the premises of
         the Company unless accompanied by at least one other employee, and kissing or
         placing his hands on any female employee in the work place.” Appellate court
         upheld order.

        Is the injunction reasonable despite barring legal behavior? Why?

        What could court do if this injunction doesn’t work? Prohibit Wilson from
         entering premises? Force corporation (of which he is primary shareholder) to
         fire him?

   Why isn’t the original nationwide injunction in Goodyear v. Marshall simply
    a prophylactic injunction? At what point could you enter a nationwide
    injunction on such a justification?
Coercive Relief at Law
   Injunctions are a form of equitable relief – i.e., they were
    originally issued by equity courts with limited powers who
    were to act only when remedies at law were not available

   This meant that such coercive relief was not readily available
    to persons seeking to stop what was often egregious
    behavior but which, for whatever reason, was not actionable
    in legal courts

   Other hurdles also existed to obtaining equitable coercive
       “irreparable injury” requirement,
       courts’ hostility to “mandatory” injunctions,
       courts’ hostility to injunctions that change the status quo

   Not surprisingly, courts of law developed their own forms of
    coercive orders - writs
Writs – Coercive Relief At Law
   Mandamus –order to a public or corporate official to perform a
    ministerial duty
       Must be an official duty & cannot be vague/discretionary function

   Prohibition – order to an inferior court or quasi-judicial body
    prohibiting it from exceeding its authority
       Directed to the actual tribunal not the parties to the action

   Supersedeas – order to an officer of the court or authority
    commanding them to stay proceedings at law
      Often associated with attempts to stay writs of execution or
       enforcements of judgments

   Habeas Corpus – order to official holding another in custody
    requiring that they bring them to court to justify further detention
       Primary function is to release from unlawful imprisonment
       Both state and federal constitutions guarantee

   Certiorari – order to a lower court to deliver the record in a lawsuit
    for discretionary review by a superior court.

Shared By: