Remedies Recording Outline
Chapter 4.
The Injunction
A. Interlocutory Injunction
1. Hughes v. Cristofane
Topless dancing case, an establishment that was suffering irreparable harm due to a city ordinance that made topless dancing illegal if the establishment served alcoholic beverages and food:
Rule of Law: A temporary restraining order may be granted where the petitioner shows that irreparable harm will ensue, that his hardship will outweigh the opponents that he is likely to succeed on the merits, and that he has no adequate remedy at law.
Teacher Notes:
Injunction: The moving party must prove that the damages are irreparable and you don’t have an adequate remedy at law (money damage).
Teacher Point:
Wanted to establish the point that irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law are the same thing.
In this case wouldn’t the moving party have been able to prove damages: It is a possibility, but the moving party would have been out of business by the time the trial ended. The moving party needed $1,000 to operate his establishment and he was only making $750 dollars since the ordinance passed.
Note: The moving party arguably could have received damages at law, because loss of remedies is not irreparable harm. Damages at law could compensate him for the difference in loss that he suffered. The court did not decide this way, but it is an argument that counsel for the defense should have raised but didn’t.
What would happen to the town if they did not grant the injunction: Well if the injunction was not granted, the ordinance would continue. But if the injunction was granted, it would return things to the status quo. But the status quo might be something immoral.
Possible Test Question
Pg. 278: The court says this case represents that the remedy is an extraordinary one, but is persuaded that the case presents the urgency and special circumstances that make extraordinary relief necessary.
Pg. 279 The Order: 1. that the plaintiffs request for a temporary restraining order be and same hereby is Granted, (you should always put this in when drafting an order.)
2. Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Company
Interlocutory Appeal
Preliminary Injunction
Pedialyte v. Ricelyte, Abbot Laboratories suing Mead Johnson Company under the Lanham Act (unfair competition act): The trial court denied the particular injunction because it thought there was no particular reason to give Abbott Laboratories an injunction against the Mead Johnson Company for manufacturing and selling their product. This was a two product industry, they are the only two competitors, and the Mead Company was packaging their product in a very similar and like manner, the advertising is false, the material used in the ad
case is in the book
Possible Test Question
Pg. 270 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 70: If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other specific act, and the party fails to comply with the act, the court may direct the act to be done, at the cost of the disobedient party, or direct another person to carry out the act, and it would have the effect if the party and complied with the court order.
If the court orders a party to do something, and the party won’t do it, you can order somebody else to do it and get it done. The author put this case in the book to illustrate this point.
4. United States v. Price
The EPA was suing Price landfill for polluting the water system to Atlantic City water supply. The EPA asked the court to issue an injunction to have the water supply tested, and requested to have the study paid for by Price landfill. The argument posed by Price was that the court order was in form a legal remedy, and not an equitable remedy because it asked from the court to have the non-moving party pay (cash, legal remedy) for the test.
