Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Propriety of Permanent Injunctive Relief
|
Main prerequisite: finding that plaintiff is being threatened by some injury for which there is no adequate legal remedy
|
Nothing left
|
|
|
Balancing Test for Permanent Injunctive relief
|
Relative hardship on either defendant or plaintiff
|
what happens to one side if ruled against
|
|
|
Sigma Chemical Co. v. Harris
|
Issue: Can a permanent injunction be issued against D
Held: Yes, no adequate legal is available to P, awareness of D on covenant before signing |
should have known better
|
|
|
William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co
|
Issue: Did the District court abuse its discretion or commit an error by not granting a preliminary injunction
Holding: Yes, Failed to apply alternative test |
failed to apply start with an a
|
|
|
Temporary Restraining Order
|
a preliminary injunction entered ex parte.dissolved within 10 days (rule 65)
|
stop the press for now
|
|
|
Test for preliminary injunction test
|
burden of demonstrating either a combo of probably success and possibility of irreparable injury OR serious questions are raised and balance of hardship tip sharply to the requester
|
can't fix it
|
|
|
Case: Walker v. City of Birmingham
|
Issue: Did the court err in refusing to consider the underlying ordinance's constitutionality?
Answer: No, proper procedure to subvert an injunction is to subject it to review AND not to disobey |
Think before acting
|
|
|
Ex-parte
|
proceeding commenced by one party without providing any opposing partied with notice or which is contested by an adverse party
|
surprise!
|
|
|
Haddle v. Garrison
|
Issue: Can P state a claim for damages by alleging that a conspiracy proscribed by section 1985(2) induced his employer to terminate his at-will employment
Holding: Yes, statute directed at intimidation or retaliation against witness in federal court proceeding. Third party interference with at will employment states a claim for relief that is compensable |
Whistle-blower compensation
|
|
|
Bridges v. Diesel Service
|
Issue: Should monetary sanctions in the form of attorney's fee be imposed on P's counsel for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
Holding: mistake immediately corrected, does not go with purpose of Rule 11 of deterrance |
Sanctions imposed
|
|
|
Rule 11 aims and goals
|
Stop, think, investigate, and Research
(STIR), does not permit use of pure heart and empty head defense Deterrance, not shifting attorney's fees |
STIR stop sign
|
|
|
Walker v. Norwest Corp
|
Issue: Did the DC abuse its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions for failure to correct an obviously inadequate jurisdiction foundation of complaint
Held: No P's burden to please citizenship. Failed to carry burden, reasonable investigation to determine D's citizenship (S. Dakota) |
where are you from?
|
|
|
Christian v. Mattell, Inc
|
Issue: Did the DC abuse its discretion in putting Rule 11 sanctions
Holding: Unclear, complaint-frivolous, but rule 11 encompasses only certain areas (pre-discovery) |
Barbie Doll
|
|
|
Rule 11 coverage area
|
pleading, written motions, and other papers that have been sign and filed in a given case
|
pre-discovery
|
|
|
Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc
|
Issue: Does a vague general denial, where specific denial required, constitute bad faith, gives rise in reliance of D's misleading pleading, precluded by SOL
Answer: Yes: Mislead P by bad faith, D failed to inform P of mistake, D estopped from denying ownership after expiration of SOL |
General denial problem
|
|
|
Layman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co
|
Is a right of entry by easement an affirmative defense in an action of trespass
Hold: Yes, defense of easement used as an attempt to avoid liability without denying any allegation in the complaint |
present in answer
|
|
|
affirmative defense
|
Attempt to avoid liability without denying any allegations in the complaint.
yes true, but... |
the real story
|
|
|
Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp
|
Did the court abuse its discretion by granting motion for leave to amend and the motion for a separate trial on the issue of who manufactured the slide?
Hold: No, no bad faith, undue delay from D. rule 42(b) gives a court authority to order separate trials in the interest of judicial economy, or convenience, or to avoid prejudice |
wrong manufacturer
|
|
|
SOL Bar to amendments unless two prong test
|
1) Claim relates back if it must arise from the same "conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading AND
2) original pleading must have given adequate notice to defendant of the claim being asserted in the amended complaint |
Relate
|
|
|
Davis v. Precoat Metals
|
Are P's entitled to the requested discovery
Answer: Yes, Information is relevant if discovery appears reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. Request of discoverable info MUST BE reasonable under the circumstances |
Hostile work environment
|
|
|
Steffan v. Cheney
|
Did the DC abuse its discretion in dismissing P's lawsuit for failure to comply with its discovery order
Answ. Yes, judicial review confined to the ground that Navy's action was based that he was homosexual. Issue of homosexual conduct was NOT relevant |
navy and homosexual
|
|
|
Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp.
|
1) should protective order be issued
2) info concerning voluntary romantic conduct or sexual activities of non-parties barred from discovery? Answer 1) No 2) Yes Impose limitation to discovery to prevent fishing and prevent potential embarassment and unrelated info |
sexual harassment discovery
|
|
|
Schlagenhauf v. Holder
|
Is the DC order that D submit to compulsory mental and physical exam valid under Rule 35A
No: D did not assert his mental/physical condition either in support of or in defense of a claim. Therefore not in controversy and good cause. No condition or scope delineated. |
Red eye accident
|
|
|
Hickman v. Taylor
|
Is the info prepared by D's attorney in anticipation of trial privileged and therefore protected from discovery?
Answ: Yes- Info sought is relevant and is not within the attorney-client privilege because does not involve a communication between an attorney and her client D's lawyer not a party to the suit, against whom discovery is sought |
eye of litigation
|
|
|
all relevant and non-privileged materials prepared by an attorney with an eyes toward litigation are protection. But two Exceptions to privilege
|
1) substantial need for materials (impeachment, corroborations AND
2) inability to obtain equivalent materials by other means |
playing hard to get
|
|
|
Thompson v. The Haskell Co
|
Does FRCP 26b4 exempt from discovery a report prepared by a non-testifying psychologist retained by P's prior attorney when no other report of comparable value exists
Answ: No, only kind of info available. info is crucial.10 days after firing gives insight into mental/emotional makeup |
value of case. exception circumstances
|
|
|
Chiquita International Ltd. V. M/V Bolero Reefer
|
1) does a nontestifying marine surveyor hired by a party to inspect a vessel in litigation classify as an expert?
2) if yes, exception circumstances apply when the surveyor was the only expert who inspected the vehicle 1) Yes 2) No D was not precluded to send own expert and had time/oppty. Barred from discovery |
Cargo loss and damage
|
|
|
Thompson v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
|
Are P's discovery requests too broad?
Answ: yes Restrict scope of discovery of unprivileged facts relevants to the claim or defense of any party. No long subject matter, unspecifed claim of burden or expense will not suffice |
Relevance of claim
|
|
|
Poole v. Textron, Inc.
|
Question: Is an award of expenses including attorney's fees or other sanction justified under governing rule and if so, in what amount?
Answer: yes. D's response and objections were not substantially justified, D's response to document requested violated its duty under 26g, was not substantially justified, award of expenses is just |
Gotta try at least
|
