🏥
Remedies • Tort - Equitable Remedies
REM#024
Legal Definition
A preliminary injunction maintains the status quo during trial, and it is issued after an adversarial hearing where there is a showing of: (1) threat of irreparable injury, (2) balancing of the hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (3) the plaintiff's likelihood of success at trial.
Irreparable injury must occur as a result of waiting for a full trial on the merits. The court will consider any hardship suffered by the defendant if an injunction is issued, and the court typically imposes a bond requirement on the plaintiff to reimburse the defendant in the even that the injunction injures them and the plaintiff loses at trial.
Irreparable injury must occur as a result of waiting for a full trial on the merits. The court will consider any hardship suffered by the defendant if an injunction is issued, and the court typically imposes a bond requirement on the plaintiff to reimburse the defendant in the even that the injunction injures them and the plaintiff loses at trial.
Plain English Explanation
A preliminary injunction is a court order that requires a party to do or not do something until a full trial can take place. It is only issued after a hearing where the party asking for the injunction (usually the plaintiff) can show that waiting for a full trial would cause them serious and permanent harm that cannot be fixed later (called "irreparable injury").
The court will also consider the balance of harm between the parties, meaning it will try to figure out which party would be hurt more by granting or denying the injunction. And finally, the party asking for the injunction must show that they are likely to win the case at a full trial on the merits.
If the court grants the preliminary injunction, it tries to keep things the way they were before the legal dispute started (called the "status quo") while the full trial takes place. However, if the party that requested the injunction ends up losing the full trial, they may have to pay a bond (an amount of money) to the other party to make up for any harm the other party suffered because of the injunction.
The court will also consider the balance of harm between the parties, meaning it will try to figure out which party would be hurt more by granting or denying the injunction. And finally, the party asking for the injunction must show that they are likely to win the case at a full trial on the merits.
If the court grants the preliminary injunction, it tries to keep things the way they were before the legal dispute started (called the "status quo") while the full trial takes place. However, if the party that requested the injunction ends up losing the full trial, they may have to pay a bond (an amount of money) to the other party to make up for any harm the other party suffered because of the injunction.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob starts a rumor online that Sam's bakery uses expired ingredients. This rumor starts affecting Sam's business, and he's losing customers rapidly. Sam decides to sue Bob for defamation. While the case is ongoing, Sam asks the court to make Bob stop spreading the rumor until the case is decided. Result: The court issues a preliminary injunction against Bob, ordering him to stop spreading the rumor until the case is over. This is because: (1) Sam would suffer irreparable injury if the rumor continued (losing his business reputation). (2) The balancing of hardships favors Sam because he would lose more (his business) than Bob would by stopping the rumor. (3) Sam has a good chance (likelihood of success) of winning the defamation case.
Hypo 2: Bob and Sam are neighbors. Bob starts building a fence that goes into Sam's property. Sam believes the fence is on his land and sues Bob for trespassing. While the case is ongoing, Sam asks the court to make Bob stop building the fence until the case is decided. Result: The court issues a preliminary injunction against Bob, stopping him from continuing the fence construction. This is because: (1) Sam would face irreparable injury if Bob continued (losing part of his property). (2) The balancing of hardships favors Sam because he would lose part of his property, while Bob would just have to pause construction. (3) Sam has a good chance (likelihood of success) of proving the fence is on his property.
Hypo 3: Bob plays loud music every night. Sam, his neighbor, finds it annoying and sues Bob for nuisance. While the case is ongoing, Sam asks the court to make Bob stop playing loud music until the case is decided.
Result: The court does NOT issue a preliminary injunction against Bob. This is because: (1) Sam's annoyance from the music is not an irreparable injury since it's temporary and can be fixed (e.g., with earplugs or compensation). (2) The balancing of hardships might not clearly favor Sam, as Bob could argue he has a right to play music in his home. (3) Sam's likelihood of success in proving the music is a legal nuisance might be uncertain.
Hypo 2: Bob and Sam are neighbors. Bob starts building a fence that goes into Sam's property. Sam believes the fence is on his land and sues Bob for trespassing. While the case is ongoing, Sam asks the court to make Bob stop building the fence until the case is decided. Result: The court issues a preliminary injunction against Bob, stopping him from continuing the fence construction. This is because: (1) Sam would face irreparable injury if Bob continued (losing part of his property). (2) The balancing of hardships favors Sam because he would lose part of his property, while Bob would just have to pause construction. (3) Sam has a good chance (likelihood of success) of proving the fence is on his property.
Hypo 3: Bob plays loud music every night. Sam, his neighbor, finds it annoying and sues Bob for nuisance. While the case is ongoing, Sam asks the court to make Bob stop playing loud music until the case is decided.
Result: The court does NOT issue a preliminary injunction against Bob. This is because: (1) Sam's annoyance from the music is not an irreparable injury since it's temporary and can be fixed (e.g., with earplugs or compensation). (2) The balancing of hardships might not clearly favor Sam, as Bob could argue he has a right to play music in his home. (3) Sam's likelihood of success in proving the music is a legal nuisance might be uncertain.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
What are equitable remedies in tort?
What are the defenses to a suit seeking injunctive relief?
What is a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and what is required to get one?
What is contempt?
What is the collateral bar rule?
What parties are bound by an injunction?
When assessing a permanent injunction, how do courts balance hardships?
When assessing defenses to a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, when are unclean hands applicable?
When assessing defenses to a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, when is impossibility applicable?
When assessing defenses to a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, when is laches applicable?
When deciding on a permanent injunction, when may ejectment be inadequate?
When deciding on applying a permanent injunction, when may money damages be inadequate?
When may replevin be inadequate as a remedy and, instead, a court will opt for a permanent injunction?
When will a court issue a permanent injunction?
