Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An injunction is an equitable remedy [a] in the form of a special court order that compels a party to refrain from specific acts. [1] [2] It was developed by the English courts of equity but its origins go back to Roman law and the equitable remedy of the "interdict".
Injunctions in English law are a legal remedy of three types. Prohibitory injunctions prevent an individual or group from beginning or continuing actions which threaten or breach the legal rights of another. Mandatory injunctions are rarer and compel a person to carry out a certain act such as make restitution to an injured party.
The court then issued a permanent injunction that "dissolved and vacated" the preliminary injunction, replacing it with an injunction based on a settlement between the parties. [2] In this injunction, the court forbade Utah Lighthouse Ministry from posting on the Internet, displaying, or reproducing the Church Handbook of Instructions.
A federal judge finalized an injunction against the Kansas Highway Patrol detailing how troopers must comply with an order on unreasonable searches.
Professor Samuel Bray is a leading critic of nationwide injunctions. Tracing equity practices at common law, Bray has argued that a federal court may only give an injunction that "protects the plaintiff vis-à-vis the defendant, wherever the plaintiff and the defendant may both happen to be."
Antitrust law in this area is clear, and as the Court has previously said, our case is likely to succeed on the merits. We are happy with the case’s progression and look forward to litigating it ...
Injunction; Injunction is a court order that coerces the defendant to take specific acts or refrains him or her from engaging in certain actions, e.g., breaching a contract. [9] In the U.S., injunction is the most common type of equitable remedies, and failure to comply with an injunction can lead to results ranging from fines to imprisonment.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]