{"id":11631,"date":"2017-12-27T03:59:02","date_gmt":"2017-12-27T03:59:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=11631"},"modified":"2018-01-21T01:38:49","modified_gmt":"2018-01-21T01:38:49","slug":"irreparable-injury-rule-the-principle-that-equitable-relief-i-e-injunction-is-available-only-when-no-adequate-legal-remedy-money-damages-exists","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=11631","title":{"rendered":"Irreparable-Injury Rule – the principle that equitable relief (i.e. injunction) is available only when no adequate legal remedy (money damages) exists"},"content":{"rendered":"

Irreparable-Injury Rule<\/span>:<\/span>
\n<\/strong>(1969)<\/span><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong>\u00a0The principle that equitable relief<\/strong> (granted via an injunction<\/a><\/strong>) is available only when no adequate legal remedy<\/strong> (monetary damages<\/a><\/strong>) exists.\u00a0 Although courts continue to cite this rule, they do not\u00a0<\/strong>usually follow it literally in practice.<\/strong> \u2014 aka adequacy test<\/strong><\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Excerpt from Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury\u00a0<\/em><\/a>Rule<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(1991):<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u201cThe irreparable injury rule has received considerable<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
\n scholarly attention. In 1978, Owen Fiss examined the possible\u00a0<\/strong>reasons for the rule and found them wanting.\u00a0 A vigorous debate\u00a0<\/strong>over the economic wisdom of applying the rule to specific\u00a0<\/strong>performance of contracts began about the same time,and& soon\u00a0<\/strong>came to center on the transaction costs of administering the two\u00a0<\/strong>remedies. Both Fiss & Dan Dobbs have noted that the rule does\u00a0<\/strong>not seem to be taken very seriously, and in a review of Fiss’s book, I<\/strong><\/span> argued that the definition of adequacy pulls most of the rule’s\u00a0<\/strong>teeth. The Restatement (Second) of Torts dropped the rule from\u00a0<\/strong>the blackletter and condemned it as misleading, but replaced it only\u00a0<\/strong>with a long and unstructured list of factors to be considered…\u00a0<\/strong>[M}any sophisticated lawyers believe that the rule continues to<\/strong><\/span>
\n reflect a serious preference for legal over equitable remedies.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [2]<\/span><\/p>\n

References:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong> All material throughout this website is pertinent to people everywhere, and is being utilized in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

[1]: Black’s Law Dictionary <\/a>Deluxe Tenth Edition<\/a><\/span><\/strong> by Henry Campbell Black, Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-61300-4<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[2<\/span><\/strong>]: Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury<\/em><\/a>
\nRule<\/em><\/a> 9 (1991)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

******************************************<\/span><\/p>\n

Back to<\/span><\/span><\/strong> Types of Injunctions<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back to<\/span><\/span><\/strong> Are you seeking a Legal Remedy (money damages), Equitable Remedy (nonmonetary forms of relief) or both?<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Civil Law Self-Help<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Criminal Law Self-Help<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Civil and Criminal Law;<\/span><\/a><\/strong>
\n<\/span>what’s the difference?<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Like this website?<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Please Support Our Fundraiser<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

or donate via\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/strong>PayPal<\/span><\/a><\/strong>:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n