Clear An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal ... TRO may be issued for short term. A TRO usually lasts while a motion for preliminary injunction is being decided, and the court decides whether to drop the order or to issue a preliminary injunction ... of restraining orders Many states have injunction laws that are written specifically to stop domestic ... law context After the United States government successfully used an injunction to outlaw the Pullman ... kinds by trade union union s. These injunctions were often extremely broad one injunction issued ... what they called government by injunction in the courts, labor and its allies persuaded the Congress ... In England and Wales a superinjunction or super injunction is a form of gagging order in which the press is prohibited from reporting even the existence of the injunction, or any details of it. ref ...&c 1 MPs slam super injunction which gagged Guardian ref ref cite news url http www.guardian.co.uk ... without being held in contempt of court , which was circulated on the internet, leading to the injunction ... A hyper injunction is similar but also includes an order that the injunction must not be discussed with members of Parliament or journalists or lawyers. One known hyper injunction was obtained ... uknews law and order 8394566 Hyper injunction stops you talking to MP.html ref ref http www.dailymail.co.uk news article 1368395 Now hyper injunction gagging order stops constituent speaking MP.html ... Social Behaviour Order UK Anti suit injunction Anti Injunction Act Legal burden of proof Burden of proof Civil litigation Interim order Cross border injunction Declaratory judgment Equity law Equity court Gang injunction Lawburrows Scotland Lawsuit Mareva injunction Peace bond Protection From Abuse ... On the Difference Between Lawsuit, a Restraining Order, and an Injunction DEFAULTSORT Injunction ... more details
unreferenced date December 2010 An interlocutory injunction is an injunction which is interlocutory . stub to prevent wrong redirect Category Legal terms law term stub ... more details
A preliminary injunction , in Equity law equity , is an injunction entered by a court prior to a final determination of the merits of a legal case , in restraining order order to restrain a party from going forward with a course of conduct or compelling a party to continue with a course of conduct until the case has been decided. If the case is decided against the party that has been enjoined, then the injunction will usually be made permanent injunction permanent . If the case is decided in favor of the party that has been enjoined, the injunction will usually be dissolved or Motion legal dismissed . In most court s in the United States , the party seeking the preliminary injunction must demonstrate all four things together That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case, That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted, That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest . The balance of harms refers to the threatened injury to the party seeking the preliminary injunction as compared to the harm that the other party may suffer from the injunction. The United States Supreme Court revisited the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction in Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365 November 12, 2008 . ref name WinterNRDC SCOTUS URL Slip 08 07 1239 Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365 2008 ref The Court changed one requirement just slightly A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. See also Reflist DEFAULTSORT Preliminary Injunction Category Judicial remedies Category Legal terms Category Equity law term stub da Fogedforbud de Vorl ufiger Rechtsschutz ... more details
The Injunction Generator is an Internet art artistic software module by Austrian artists Ubermorgen which claims to generate on request legal injunction s and personalized documentation in .rtf .pdf format to force a website into taking its contents offline. Carrying on with their principles of radical corporative marketing strategy media hacking , the artists produced an effective and credible interface which helps creating one s own documented cease and desist request, which is then automatically sent to the Domain Name System DNS administrators, to the site s owner and to some journalists to trick them into supporting the public trial . The project is published at ipnic.org , an acronym which mimics the official protocols Internet Protocol Network Information Center , revisited as Internet Partnership for No Internet Content . This sarcastic provocation a public shutdown service was conceived after experiencing a similar mishap during the Voteauction art project, which in 2000 invited American citizens to put up their vote for auction. At the time an email injunction by an American court was sent to the Swiss internet service provider hosting the site, who immediately took them offline even though emailed documents aren t legally considered official and even though Switzerland is outside of American jurisdiction. External links http www.ipnic.org Injunction Generator Primarysources date December 2006 Category Websites Category Legal software ... more details
Unreferenced stub auto yes date December 2009 Judicial remedies The Mareva injunction variously known also as a freezing order , Mareva order or Mareva regime , in Commonwealth of Nations Commonwealth jurisdictions, is a injunction court order which freezes assets so that a defendant to an lawsuit action cannot dissipate their assets from beyond the jurisdiction of a court so as to frustrate a Judgment law judgment . It is named for Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA 1975 2 Lloyd s Rep 509, decided in 1975, although the first recorded instance of such an order in English jurisprudence was Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis in 1975, decided very shortly before the Mareva decision however, in the UK the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 now define a Mareva order as a freezing order. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions and such orders can be made to have world wide effect. It is variously construed as part of a court s inherent jurisdiction to restrain abuse of process breaches of its process . It is not a security Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd , nor a means to pressure a judgment debtor Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia No. 2 , nor does it confer a proprietary interest in the assets of the judgment debtor Cretanor Maritime Co Ltd v Irish Marine Management Ltd . However, some authorities have treated the Mareva injunction as an order to stop a judgment debtor from dissipating his assets so as to have the effect of frustrating judgment, rather than the more strenuous test of requiring an intent to abuse court procedure. An example ... at the pre trial stage in ex parte hearings, based on affidavit evidence alone. A Mareva injunction ... case that they would succeed at trial and that the refusal of an injunction would involve a real ... of intellectual property rights , approved in April 2004. See also Injunction Anton Piller order DEFAULTSORT Mareva Injunction Category Common law Category Law in the United Kingdom Category ... more details
Out of date date January 2011 Globalize date January 2011 A gang injunction is a court issued injunction restraining order prohibiting gang members from participating in certain activities. It is based on the legal theory that gang activity constitutes a public nuisance that prevents non gang members from enjoying peace in their communities. History While Los Angeles experimented with gang injunctions in the 1980s, the first gang injunction to make headlines was obtained by Los Angeles City Attorney James Hahn against the West Los Angeles based Playboy Gangster Crips in 1987. The move was hailed as an innovative way for law enforcement to crack down on gangs, allowing people to regain control of their neighborhoods. In 1993, the Los Angeles City Attorney s office filed for another injunction, this time against 500 members of the Blythe Street Gang of Panorama City, California Panorama City . The American Civil Liberties Union joined other groups in opposing the injunction, arguing that it would outlaw such legal activities as carrying on conversations and possessing tools like pocket knives and screwdrivers, and that it would lead to injustices against people whose identity had been mistaken. The injunction was issued despite the efforts against it. It was followed by injunctions in the cities of San Jose, California San Jose , Burbank, California Burbank , San Diego, California San Diego , Westminster, California Westminster , Pasadena, California Pasadena , Redondo Beach, California Redondo Beach , Modesto, California Modesto and Oxnard, California Oxnard . In Los Angeles today, under current City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, there are 37 gang injunctions covering 57 gangs ... that they individually name every gang member, establish a designated area where the injunction applies ... as lookouts, fighting, drinking, and using drugs. Some prohibited activities are already illegal, but the injunction ... by injunction . New York LFB Scholarly Pub., 2004. ISBN 1 59332 041 8 official website of THE LOS ... more details
Unreferenced stub auto yes date December 2009 The Anti Injunction Act , Usc 28 2283 , is a United States federal statute that prohibits any United States federal courts federal court from issuing an injunction against proceedings in any State court United States state court , except within three specifically defined exceptions. The Act was enacted on March 2, 1793 as Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1793 , to alleviate states fears of federal power. The current language of the Act states A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments. A body of case law has grown with respect to the questions of what constitutes an express authorization what is necessary in aid of jurisdiction and what constitutes protection or effectuation of a Legal judgment judgment . Cases have also hinged on questions of what orders constitute an injunction by the federal court against the state court. Among the statutes recognized as express authorization to grant an injunction under the first exception is Civil Rights Act of 1871 Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act . The second exception is used in two areas to prevent state courts from continuing to hear matters which have been removed to federal court, as well as to permit federal courts to enjoin state suits in cases of real property dispute where a federal claim is filed first. It is relatively rare in application. The third exception is used to prevent parties who have lost in federal litigation from seeking hearing of their cases in state court. The Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris , while addressing questions distinct from the Anti Injunction Act, is relevant to the subject of federal injunctions against state court proceedings, insofar as it and its ... v. Harris Tax Anti Injunction Act of 1867. Category 1793 in law Category United States federal judiciary ... more details
Conflict of laws In the area of conflict of laws , anti suit injunction is an order issued by a court order court or arbitral tribunal ref L vy, Laurent, Anti suit Injunctions Issued by Arbitrators , in Emmanuel Gaillard ed. , Anti Suit Injunctions In International Arbitration Berne Staempfli, 2005 ref that prevents an opposing party from commencing or continuing a proceeding in another jurisdiction or forum. If the opposing party contravenes such an order issued by a court, a contempt of court order may be issued by the domestic court against that party. It is often used as a means to prevent forum shopping . In recent years many jurisdictions have placed a high standard to obtain an injunction such as where the proceedings are oppressive or vexatious . Furthermore, in proceedings where Council Regulation EC No 44 2001 applies to the parties, the anti suit injunction is no longer available to assist litigation ref Turner v Grovit C 159 02 2005 1 AC 101 ref or arbitration ref Allianz SpA formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA v West Tankers Inc C 185 07 2009 1 AC 1138 ref . Reflist See also Non suit Category Conflict of laws law term stub ... more details
injunction brought under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 , applied to all .... Breach of any condition of the civil injunction carried a criminal penalty of up to five years in prison ... to defend the legality of the war on Iraq, and apparently bolster EDO s case for the injunction ... also pay their own substantial costs, but most importantly of all, that the injunction against ... injunction against all protests at the EDO MBM factory in Brighton. It should be also noted that the legally ... the interim injunction created serious infringements of protester s ECHR human rights to free speech ... held onto a temporary injunction that was in place till the full trial would decide if a permanent ... s injunction lifted , BBC , March 23, 2006 ref See also EDO Decomissioners Case References reflist 2 External links http www.smashedo.org.uk resources.htm 4 Legal documents related to the EDO Injunction ... more details
The Tax Anti Injunction Act , currently codified at Usc 26 7421 a , is a United States federal law enacted in 1867. The statute provides that with fourteen specified exceptions, no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed . This rule is related to the Flora full payment rule , based in part on the United States Supreme Court decision in Flora v. United States , case citation 357 U.S. 63 1958 , aff d on reh g , case citation 362 U.S. 145 1960 , essentially requiring that a person resisting the assessment of a tax must first pay the full amount of tax asserted by the Internal Revenue Service IRS and then file a formal administrative claim for refund with the IRS. As a general rule, the courts will not entertain a suit to enjoin the government from assessing the tax, but will entertain a suit for a tax refund after the IRS has denied the refund claim, or six months have elapsed 120 days in Bankruptcy in the United States bankruptcy cases since the filing of the claim, whichever is earlier. See also Usc 26 6532 Usc 26 7422 Usc 28 1346 a and Usc 11 505 . For income taxes and certain other taxes, the taxpayer may litigate the tax in the United States Tax Court prior to assessment, without first paying the tax. See also Anti Injunction Act , a separate federal law. Category 1867 in law Category 1867 in the United States Category United States federal judiciary legislation Category United States federal taxation legislation US fed statute stub ... more details
In European law , and especially in European intellectual property law, a cross border injunction is an injunction by a court in one European country, such as a court in the Netherlands forbidding infringement in several other Europe an countries. For a period in the late 1990s, national courts issued cross border injunctions covering all EP jurisdictions, but this has been limited by the European Court of Justice . In two cases in July 2006, interpreting Articles 6.1 and 16.4 of the Brussels Regime Brussels Convention , the European Court of Justice held that European patents are national rights that must be enforced nationally, that it was unavoidable that infringements of the same European patent have to be litigated in each relevant national court, even if the lawsuit is against the same group of companies, and that cross border injunctions are not available. ref http curia.europa.eu jurisp cgi bin form.pl?lang EN&Submit Rechercher docrequire alldocs&numaff C 4 03&datefs &datefe &nomusuel &domaine &mots &resmax 100 Case C 4 03, Gesellschaft f r Antriebstechnik v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG , European Ct. of Justice 13 July 2006 http curia.europa.eu jurisp cgi bin form.pl?lang EN&Submit Rechercher docrequire alldocs&numaff C 539 03&datefs &datefe &nomusuel &domaine &mots &resmax 100 Case C 539 03, Roche Nederland BV v Primus , European Ct. of Justice 13 July 2006 ref References and further reading reflist Jochen Buhling, http www.buildingipvalue.com 07EU p.172 175 20Krieger.pdf Cross border injunctions in patent infringement cases paradise lost? , Building and enforcing intellectual property value 2007, p172 175. http ipgeek.blogspot.com 2008 03 is their after life for pan european.html Is there an After Life for Pan European Injunctions? , IPEG blog, March 27, 2008 See also Brussels Regime Enforcement of European patents Lis alibi pendens Spider in the web doctrine Category Intellectual property law Euro law stub ... more details
Mareva may refer to A Mareva injunction Mareva injunction , a court order to freeze assets Mareva Galanter , a French actress and beauty contestant disambig ... more details
Injunctive may refer to Injunction , a legal concept Injunctive mood , a linguistic concept disambig Long comment to avoid being listed on short pages ... more details
unreferenced date August 2007 Orphan date November 2006 Quia Timet Injunction is an injunction to restrain wrongful acts which are threatened or imminent but have not yet been commenced. Fletcher v. Bealey 1884 28 Ch.D. 688 at p. 698 stated the necessary conditions for equity courts to properly grant an injunction in such cases proof of imminent danger proof that the threatened injury will be practically irreparable and proof that whenever the injurious circumstances ensue, it will be impossible to protect plaintiff s interests, if relief is denied. Quia Timet qui a ti met Lat. because he fears. Category Latin legal terms Category Common law Latin legal phrase stub ... more details
Multiple issues cleanup October 2009 copyedit October 2009 unreferenced October 2009 orphan September 2010 Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. , http academic.udayton.edu CasesLawEcon Property Spur 20v 20Web.pdf is a case often used in first year law school property courses to demonstrate the principles of nuisance law . It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. http www.amazon.com dp 0314258787 The case involves the owner of a livestock feedlot , Spur Industries, and Del Webb Webb Development , the developer of the now well known retirement community, Sun City, Arizona . Both enterprises beginning small, they eventually grew large enough and close enough to one another that the stench of manure and the infestation of flies from the feedlot were both affecting current residents of Sun City and inhibiting future sales. Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. The lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations. The court held that the injunction was proper. Distinguishing between private and public nuisances, the former being remedied often only by damages, at least where the costs of injunction are great on the defendant, the court determined that the feedlot was a public nuisance. This decision was made in large part because an Arizona statute called any place in populous areas which constitutes a breading place for flies . . . and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. Determining south Sun City to be a populous area the court said that injunction was thus proper. Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. Citing the coming to a nuisance doctrine, which prohibits equitable relief for a homeowner who purchases a home within the reach of the nuisance, the court said that Webb must indemnify Spur for his losses as a result of a move or shutdown of his enterprise. The court reasoned ... more details
unreferenced date December 2010 Peliculu in mora , Latin for danger in delay , is one of two conditions which must be asserted in actions aimed at obtaining a protective order or injunction eg. ART.700 former CCP , to be granted the relief sought the other condition being fumus boni iuris . The second condition is the c.d. Prima facie case. The burden of proof of danger in delay falls to the person who requests the injunction or order, demonstrating the existence of both requirements, pericolum notice, and the risk of suffering serious and irreparable damage. The term serious harm refers to the magnitude of the damages, calculated in relation to the value of the property in dispute an injury will not be so serious in itself, but only when compared to the object of contention. Irreparable damage is in the possibility of a remedy in the future against which the party seeking the injunction believes they will suffer. Only asset orientation is currently supported, in that the prevailing possibility of obtaining compensation for damages is, in itself, sufficient to prevent the founding of irreparable harm. Category Legal terms ... more details
Contains Arabic text Nass lang ar is an arabic word meaning a known, or clear, legal injunction . In Twelver Shi ah Islam , nass is used to reference the nomination of a Imamah Twelver Shi i Doctrine Imam by a previous Imam. Category Twelvers Islam stub ... more details
unreferenced date December 2010 Periculum in mora , Latin for danger in delay , is one of two conditions which must be asserted in actions aimed at obtaining a protective order or injunction e.g. ART.700 former CCP , to be granted the relief sought the other condition being fumus boni iuris . The second condition is the c.d. Prima facie case. The burden of proof of danger in delay falls to the person who requests the injunction or order, demonstrating the existence of both requirements, pericolum notice, and the risk of suffering serious and irreparable damage. The term serious harm refers to the magnitude of the damages, calculated in relation to the value of the property in dispute an injury will not be so serious in itself, but only when compared to the object of contention. Irreparable damage is in the possibility of a remedy in the future against which the party seeking the injunction believes they will suffer. Only asset orientation is currently supported, in that the prevailing possibility of obtaining compensation for damages is, in itself, sufficient to prevent the founding of irreparable harm. See also List of legal Latin terms Category Latin legal terms ... more details
Prince Albert v Strange was a court decision made by the High Court of Chancery in 1849 , and began the development of Breach of confidence confidence law in England . The court awarded Prince Albert an injunction , restraining Strange from publishing a catalogue describing Prince Albert s etchings. Lord Cottenham LC Charles Pepys, 1st Earl of Cottenham noted that this case by no means depends solely upon the question of property, for a breach of trust, confidence, or contract, would OK here don t correct it of itself entitle the plaintiff to an injunction. See also Privacy in English law Category English case law Category English privacy law cases Category 1849 in case law Category 1849 in the United Kingdom Category Legal articles without infoboxes UK law stub ... more details
in their possession on the premises. The bill prays for a writ of injunction restraining the defendants ... by affidavits of third parties. The court granted a preliminary injunction, but, after the trial of the action at law, judgment being rendered therein in favor of the defendants, it dissolved the injunction ... filed a bill for an account and an injunction to restrain waste, stating that the defendant claimed by a title adverse to his, he stated himself out of court as to the injunction. It is common ... or the removal of coal, to issue an injunction though the title to the premises be in litigation ... existed for the injunction continues. The decree of the court below was therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to restore the injunction until the final determination of that action ... more details
2282. Without deciding the merits of the claims, the three judge District Court granted the injunction ... relief, which referred only to the 1968 election and requested no injunction as to future conduct ... granting or denying . . . an interlocutory or permanent injunction . . . . Opinion of the court ... or denying an interlocutory or permanent injunction, because the order appealed from did not grant or deny an injunction, but did no more than deny the plaintiffs a declaratory judgment striking down ... of an injunction, and that a properly convened three judge Federal District Court s order granting or denying an injunction or its equivalent was appealable under 1253. See also List of United States ... more details
selfref For the Wikipedia essay regarding biographies of living persons, see Wikipedia Avoiding harm Do No Harm may refer to Medicine First, do no harm , or, in Latin, primum non nocere , a medical injunction the Hippocratic oath . Media First Do No Harm , a television film starring Meryl Streep Do No Harm Lost Do No Harm Lost , an episode of Lost Do No Harm , an episode of Strong Medicine Season 1 2000 2001 Strong Medicine See also Ahimsa Disambig ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia Worker s Compensation Board full case name Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia Worker s Compensation Board heard date May 25, 1992 decided date March 25, 1993 citations 1993 1 S.C.R. 897 docket 22256 history ruling Board s appeal granted ratio SCC 1992 1993 Unanimous Sopinka J. NotParticipating LawsApplied Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia Worker s Compensation Board , 1993 1 S.C.R. 897 is a leading decision on forum non conveniens by the Supreme Court of Canada . The Court overturned an anti suit injunction issued by the British Columbia Supreme Court against the courts in Texas on the basis that the British Columbia BC court was not necessarily the better forum for the case. Background A number of BC residents began an action against several US manufacturers of asbestos in Texas. The Texas court accepted jurisdiction over the matter and heard the case. The manufacturers applied to the BC Supreme Court to issue an anti suit injunction, arguing that the proper forum for the plaintiffs would be in BC and not Texas. The BC Supreme Court issued the injunction. In response, Texas issued an anti anti suit injunction . The BC Supreme Court judgment was upheld on appeal to the BC Court of Appeal. Ruling of the Court The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the judgment and found that there was insufficient grounds to deny Texas jurisdiction. The Court adopts the test for forum non conveniens from Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd. , 1987 A.C. 460 See also List of Supreme Court of Canada cases Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye , 1990 External links lexum scc2 1993 1 897 124 Category Conflict of laws case law Category Supreme Court of Canada cases Category 1993 in Canada Category 1993 in case law ... more details
G rant ing the injunction unless defendant pays plaintiffs such permanent damages as may be fixed ... techniques to minimize nuisance. blockquote The trial court was ordered to grant an injunction ... nuisance law and property law . The court granted an injunction against the cement plant for nuisance, but permitted the plant to pay permanent damages after which the court would vacate the injunction ... more details
the Supreme Court of the United States held that individuals who bribed a judge for an injunction ... from the injunction. The case In January, 1973, a judge of the 229th District Court of Duval County ..., the injunction was dissolved by an appellate court as having been illegally issued. Respondents ... the injunction, the sole owner of the corporation, the judge who entered the injunction, and the two individual sureties.on the injunction bond, one of whom is now petitioner in this Court. Essentially, the claim was that the injunction had been corruptly issued as the result of a conspiracy between ... the injunction was a judicial act within the jurisdiction of the state court, the judge was immune from liability in a 1983 suit, whether or not the injunction had issued as the result of a corrupt ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
