{"id":6163,"date":"2017-11-02T04:08:46","date_gmt":"2017-11-02T04:08:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=6163"},"modified":"2017-11-05T18:13:43","modified_gmt":"2017-11-05T18:13:43","slug":"writ-of-injunction-to-command-or-prevent-an-action-that-the-plaintiff-has-shown-to-be-necessary-to-prevent-injury","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=6163","title":{"rendered":"(Writs of) Injunction – a variety of writs to command or prevent an action that the plaintiff has shown to be necessary to prevent injury"},"content":{"rendered":"

Definition of Injunction<\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/strong>n<\/em>. (16c.) A court order commanding or preventing an action. To get an\u00a0<\/strong>injunction, the complainant must show that there is not plain, adequate, & complete\u00a0<\/strong>remedy at law & that an irreparable injury will result unless the relief is granted.<\/strong> \u2014 Also\u00a0termed writ of injunction<\/em><\/strong><\/span>, equitable injunction<\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Excerpt from Howard C. Joyce’s\u00a0A Treatise on the Law Relating to\u00a0<\/em><\/a>Injunctions<\/em><\/a>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u201cIn a general sense, every order of a court which\u00a0commands or forbids is an injunction<\/a>, but in its accepted legal\u00a0sense, an injunction is a judicial process or mandate operating\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>in personam by which, upon certain established principled of\u00a0equity, a party is required to do or refrain from doing a\u00a0<\/strong>particular thing. An injunction has also been defined as a writ<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>framed according to the circumstances of the case,\u00a0<\/strong>commanding an act which the court regards as essential to\u00a0<\/strong>justice, or restraining an act, which it esteems contrary to\u00a0<\/strong>equity & good conscience; as a remedial writ which courts\u00a0<\/strong>issue for the purpose of enforcing their equity jurisdiction; &\u00a0<\/strong>as a writ<\/a> issuing by the order & under the seal of a court of\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>equity<\/a>.<\/span>\u201d<\/strong> [2]<\/span><\/p>\n

Definition of Irreparable-Injury Rule<\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c(1969) The principle that equitable relief<\/strong> (such as\u00a0an injunction) is available only when no adequate legal remedy<\/strong> (such as\u00a0monetary damages) exists. Although courts continue to cite this rule, they do not\u00a0<\/strong>usually follow it literally in practice.<\/strong> \u2014 Also termed adequacy test.\u201d<\/strong><\/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 & found them wanting. 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, & 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, &in a review of Fiss’s book, I<\/strong><\/span>
\n 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 & condemned it as misleading, but replaced it only\u00a0<\/strong>with a long & 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> [3]<\/span><\/p>\n

Types of Injunctions:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n