Chapter 1
Introduction
A. Overview
· What is the relief sought by the plaintiff?
o Damages
o Restitution
o Specific relief
o Declaratory judgment
· **Reason asking for equitable relief: “a lack of adequate remedy at law”**
Riggs v. Palmer
· Issue: Whether a 16-year-old who has been convicted of murdering his grandfather should be entitled to inherit from his grandfather’s will.
· Rule: No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud or crime.
In re Covert
· Issue: Did the court properly apply Riggs v. Palmer while also protecting the interests of those who were innocent and not parties to any wrongdoing?
· Holding: Where a victim’s will makes bequests to the wrongdoer’s family – innocent distributees – their status as beneficiaries under the victim’s will is not invalidated, and they are not disinherited by virtue of their familial relationship to the wrongdoer.
Graf v. Hope Building Corp.
· Facts: A mortgagor failed to pay an installment when due, and the mortgagee accelerated the mortgage, requiring immediate repayment of the entire mortgage indebtedness.
· Holding: There was no forfeiture, only the operation of a clause fair on its face, to which the mortgagor had freely assented.
o Rejection of P’s legal right could rest only on compassion for ∆’s negligence. Such a tender emotion must be exerted, if at all, by the parties than by the court.
· Dissent: Equity follows the law, but not slavishly nor always. If it did, there could never be occasion for enforcement of equitable doctrine.
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcello
· Facts: Navy violated “FWPCA” by discharging bombs in the water off coast of Puerto Rico without first obtaining a permit from the EPA.
· An injunction is traditionally reserved to the sound discretion of the court.
o The basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies.
Chapter 2
History of Equity
A. Overview
· There is not a clean test to distinguish between something that is equitable and something that is legal.
Equitable maxims
· Equitable maxims often mentioned by courts, but courts seldom rest their decision entirely on an equitable maxim.
o Often used to justify the result the court has reached.
(1)Equity Will Not Suffer a Wrong to Be Without a Remedy
· Fundamental ideas of equity and how it developed in the Courts of Chancery
· This maxim is one of the most famous, but it rarely, standing on its own, justifies imposing an equitable remedy
(2) Equity Acts in Personam
· Equity acts against the person, not against the property
· Equity enforces its powers by means of coercing the person (through contempt)
(3) Equity Follows the Law
· Courts will not create a remedy in direct contravention of law
· Rarely will equity create a remedy in the absence of a legal duty
(4) Equity is Equality
· Equity seeks to secure equality among persons who are equally obligated or who are equally entitled to claim a benefit
(5) Equity Regards as Done What Ought to be Done
· Equity regards as done that which, in fairness and good conscience, ought to be or should have been done
(6) Equity Regards Substance Rather Than Form
· Equity, in its desire to do justice, will, when appropriate, ignore technicalities
(7) One Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity
· Courts may impose equitable obligations on a party as a condition granting relief
(8) One Who Comes to Equity Must Do So with Clean Hands
· A litigant may be denied on the grounds that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair, dishonest, or fraudulent and deceitful
(9) Equity Aids the Vigilant and the Diligent
· Equity does not aid those who slept on their rights
· This is the basis for the modern defense of laches
Chapter 3
Powers of Courts of Equity
A. Notice
· What sort of notice is required to enforce an equitable decree?
· To be sufficient, notice must
o (1) proceed from a source entitled to credit and
o (2) must clearly inform the ∆ from what act he must abstain.
· Actual notice is required.
· Constructive notice is not sufficient.
Cape May v. Johnson
· The court found ∆s in contempt even though the order they violated had been “improvidently granted.”
· The moral: Never advise a client that he can safely ignore an equitable order.
B. Persons Bound by the Decree
·
vested substantial discretion in local officials as to when a parade permit should be granted. The TRO application made allegations that the protests would endanger public safety. Notice was served on ∆s. ∆s proceeded to protest, regardless of TRO. Following protest, ∆s were held in contempt of court for violating the TRO. ∆s attempted to challenge the validity of the Order under the First Amendment.
· Holding: Because the ∆s violated the TRO, they cannot challenge its constitutional validity.
o No motion to dissolve the injunction was ever filed.
o No attempt to seek a permit after the order was ever attempted.
o Therefore, the collateral bar rule applies.
· Note: Petitioners had no duty to challenge the statute before violating it.
o But once the judicial process has been invoked, they were bound to pursue that process in search of relief.
U.S. v. United Mine Workers
· Facts: US obtained a TRO prohibiting a United Mine Workers strike. Both the Union and its president proceeded to violate the terms of the TRO. Court had the power to preserve existing conditions by a TRO while it was determining its own authority to grant injunctive relief. ∆s, by going on strike, acted at their peril. ∆s could have made a motion to dissolve the TRO. ∆s, however, defended on ground that court lacked authority to issue TRO
· Rule: A party may be convicted of criminal, but not civil, contempt for violating an order which is subsequently shown to have been erroneously issued.
· Holding: Parties should utilize the court system to resolve any deficiencies in an injunction.
o Courts do not want people defying court orders even if they are erroneously issued.
o Even if the TRO had been invalid, ∆s had duty to obey it until it was set aside by orderly and proper proceedings.
§ Their disobedience is punishable as criminal contempt.
