🏥
Remedies • Tort - Equitable Remedies
REM#025
Legal Definition
A permanent injunction will be issued after a trial on the merits where: (1) there is no adequate legal remedy (e.g., replevin, ejectment, or damages will not suffice); (2) enforcement is feasible. (3) balancing of the hardships favors the plaintiff; and (4) there are no defenses.
Note that injunctive relief is almost always coupled with damages for injuries incurred in the time prior to obtaining the injunction.
Note that injunctive relief is almost always coupled with damages for injuries incurred in the time prior to obtaining the injunction.
Plain English Explanation
A permanent injunction is an order from a judge that tells someone they have to do something or stop doing something forever. It is only given after a trial where the judge has looked at all the facts and listened to everyone's arguments.
To get a permanent injunction, the person who wants it (usually the person who was wronged) has to show four things:
First, that there is no other way to fix the problem besides the injunction. For example, it's not enough to just get back the thing that you lost, or be given money for the harm. The only thing that makes things right is a change in action.
Second, that the person who has to follow the injunction will actually do it. There is no point in getting a permanent injunction if the person can just ignore it and do whatever they want anyway.
Third, that the person who wants the injunction (usually the person who was wronged) will suffer more if they don't get it than the person who has to follow it will suffer if they do.
Fourth, that the person who has to follow the injunction doesn't have any good reasons or excuses for why they shouldn't have to follow it.
It's also important to know that when someone gets a permanent injunction, they almost always get some money too to make up for any bad things that happened before the judge gave the injunction.
To get a permanent injunction, the person who wants it (usually the person who was wronged) has to show four things:
First, that there is no other way to fix the problem besides the injunction. For example, it's not enough to just get back the thing that you lost, or be given money for the harm. The only thing that makes things right is a change in action.
Second, that the person who has to follow the injunction will actually do it. There is no point in getting a permanent injunction if the person can just ignore it and do whatever they want anyway.
Third, that the person who wants the injunction (usually the person who was wronged) will suffer more if they don't get it than the person who has to follow it will suffer if they do.
Fourth, that the person who has to follow the injunction doesn't have any good reasons or excuses for why they shouldn't have to follow it.
It's also important to know that when someone gets a permanent injunction, they almost always get some money too to make up for any bad things that happened before the judge gave the injunction.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob has a machine that releases a lot of smoke into Sam's backyard, making it impossible for Sam to have BBQ parties. Sam asks the court to make Bob stop using the machine.
Result: The court gives a permanent injunction because:
1. Money can't fix the problem.
2. The court can check if Bob stops using the machine.
3. Sam's suffering (no BBQ parties) is worse than Bob's inconvenience of not using the machine.
4. Bob doesn't have a good reason to keep using the machine.
Hypo 2: Bob keeps parking his car in Sam's driveway, blocking Sam from using it. Sam asks the court to make Bob stop.
Result: The court gives a permanent injunction because:
1. Money won't solve the problem.
2. The court can ensure Bob doesn't park there.
3. Sam's suffering (can't use his driveway) is worse than Bob's inconvenience of finding another parking spot.
4. Bob doesn't have a good reason to park there.
Hypo 3: Bob plays loud music once a year on his birthday. Sam doesn't like it and asks the court to stop Bob.
Result: The court doesn't give a permanent injunction because:
1. It's only once a year, so maybe money can fix the problem.
2. It's hard for the court to enforce this only once a year.
3. Sam's inconvenience of one night of loud music isn't that bad compared to Bob not celebrating his birthday.
4. Bob has a reason: it's his birthday!
Result: The court gives a permanent injunction because:
1. Money can't fix the problem.
2. The court can check if Bob stops using the machine.
3. Sam's suffering (no BBQ parties) is worse than Bob's inconvenience of not using the machine.
4. Bob doesn't have a good reason to keep using the machine.
Hypo 2: Bob keeps parking his car in Sam's driveway, blocking Sam from using it. Sam asks the court to make Bob stop.
Result: The court gives a permanent injunction because:
1. Money won't solve the problem.
2. The court can ensure Bob doesn't park there.
3. Sam's suffering (can't use his driveway) is worse than Bob's inconvenience of finding another parking spot.
4. Bob doesn't have a good reason to park there.
Hypo 3: Bob plays loud music once a year on his birthday. Sam doesn't like it and asks the court to stop Bob.
Result: The court doesn't give a permanent injunction because:
1. It's only once a year, so maybe money can fix the problem.
2. It's hard for the court to enforce this only once a year.
3. Sam's inconvenience of one night of loud music isn't that bad compared to Bob not celebrating his birthday.
4. Bob has a reason: it's his birthday!
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
What are equitable remedies in tort?
What are the defenses to a suit seeking injunctive relief?
What is a preliminary injunction and how is it issued?
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?
