Forster v. Boss

					Bell v. Southwell, 376 F.2d 659, 1967 Issue Reasoning
Not every unconstitutional racial discrimination necessarily permits or requires a retrospective voiding of the election Court cannot deny relief just b/c of any assumed inability t demonstrate that the outcome would have been different. Where no effective relief was available before the election, and Пs promptly challenged discriminatory practices when the occurred, a federal court cannot justify denial of effective, present relief.


Federal voiding of state election is drastic, if not staggering, and is a form of relief that should be guardedly exercised. A federal court may void a state election in which the election process and practices violated the Constitutional rights of voters. Can use injunctions to repair the harm of past violations in an election process.

There were all sorts of discriminatory acts in a local election in which Bell, a black, lost to Southwell, a white. Bell sought to set aside the election results and enjoin Southwell from taking office and to have the court order a call for new election.

Dissent Held Proc


Court found that these practices can’t go on b/c they are unconstitutional. But it was either powerless or at least ought not to exercise power to set aside a state election. o There is no way to tell whether the results would’ve been different w/o these unconstitutional racially discriminatory actions. (District J apparently thought he could enjoin future violations but could not undo the effects of past violations)

П argues Δ argues

Forster v. Boss, 97 F.3d 1127, 1966 Issue Reasoning
Buyers received damages and specific performance. o They are in a better position than they would have been in had there been no fraud or breach of K in the 1st place. There was 3 years lapse in time: o It is entirely possible that Пs sustained some sort of damages because they had to wait for the complete fulfillment of the terms of the sale. o The case, however, was not tried on that theory, and there is no evidence in this record on which damages of this interim kind could be calculated. The littoral rights were protected by the injunction and are the same rights for which damages were awarded. o The injunction made the Пs whole o To allow them to keep both would be double recovery. A court of equity may award injunctive relief and actual and punitive damages as an adjunct to its equity jurisdiction



The Bosses sold their house to the Forsters. The Bosses fraudulently represented that the Forsters could obtain a permit for a boat dock, but in fact, the Bosses already had such a permit. Additionally, The Bosses promised to remove their swim dock but they didn’t. The buyers were awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $15K, punitive damages of $10K, and a permanent injunction ordering sellers to remove their swim dock 1, and the bosses were stripped of their boat dock permit and the Bosses were granted one. <Δ arg>


Пs elected a remedy: they sought the injunction. Δs already have lost the permit. o It may be that the dock permit cannot be retrieved by Δs, despite the lifting of the injunction. On Remand, it will be up to Пs to pick which remedy they want. But they will retain the punitive damages in either case. o (since MO requires compensatory damages before awarding punitives, court will award $1) The measure of damages for fraud in connection with the sale if land is the difference b/w the value of the land on the date of sale as represented, and the value of land on the date of sale as actually conveyed. No double recovery: Redress of 2 separate legal rights: 1) Right not to be defrauded and 2) littoral2 rights This is double recovery. The injunction has made Пs whole. o With the injunctions, the property transferred to Пs has exactly the characteristics Δs agreed it would have.

Held Proc П argues Δ argues

1 2

In here, there is an adequate remedy in law for the swim dock (namely, $ for breach of K). Why did the court award an injunction? Littoral: Associated with shallow (shoreline area) water

Shared By: