» » The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule

Download The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule fb2

by Douglas Laycock
Download The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule fb2
History & Criticism
  • Author:
    Douglas Laycock
  • ISBN:
    0195063562
  • ISBN13:
    978-0195063561
  • Genre:
  • Publisher:
    Oxford University Press; 1 edition (January 17, 1991)
  • Pages:
    382 pages
  • Subcategory:
    History & Criticism
  • Language:
  • FB2 format
    1268 kb
  • ePUB format
    1498 kb
  • DJVU format
    1339 kb
  • Rating:
    4.8
  • Votes:
    720
  • Formats:
    docx azw mbr lit


Professor Laycock has written a book that every litigator should know Laycock quotes 1% of case law showing the lack of application of the irreparable injury rule, but ignores 99% that applies it.

Professor Laycock has written a book that every litigator should know. Laycock patiently and ably catalogs the circumstances in which specific relief is granted and for each one shows us that irreparable injury is not the court's concern. A great service to the law-first rate Grand Style stuff,"-Ian Macneil, Northwestern University. Laycock quotes 1% of case law showing the lack of application of the irreparable injury rule, but ignores 99% that applies it.

The irreparable injury rule says that courts will not grant an equitable remedy to prevent harm if it would be adequate to let the .

The irreparable injury rule says that courts will not grant an equitable remedy to prevent harm if it would be adequate to let the harm happen and grant the legal remedy of money damages. After surveying more than 1400 cases, Laycock concludes that this ancient rule is dead-that it almost never affects the results of cases. When a court denies equitable relief, its real reasons are derived from the interests of defendants or the legal system, and not from the adequacy of the plaintiff's legal remedy.

The irreparable injury rule has been a fixture of Anglo-American law for half a millenium. in its most obvious application, it says that courts will not prevent harm if money damages could adequately compensate for the harm. It says that I am free to destroy your property as long as I can pay for it. I suspect that this rule sounds absurd to people who are neither lawyers nor economists.

1 The irreparable injury rule. 2 The concept of irreparable injury in various jurisdictions. This requirement, commonly called the "irreparable injury rule", has been the subject of sustained academic criticism, especially by remedies scholar Douglas Laycock, who has argued at length that the rule does not actually explain the decisions of courts in the United States. Nevertheless, the irreparable injury rule was reaffirmed by the . 388 (2006), a case in which the Court announced a test for injunctive relief that required, among other things, that the plaintiff prove "that it has suffered an irreparable injury".

The irreparable injury rule says that courts will not grant an equitable remedy to prevent harm if it would be adequate to let the harm happen and grant the legal remedy of money damages

The irreparable injury rule says that courts will not grant an equitable remedy to prevent harm if it would be adequate to let the harm happen and grant the legal remedy of money damages. When a court denies equitable relief, its real r The irreparable injury rule says that courts will not grant an equitable remedy to prevent harm if it would be adequate to let the harm happen and grant the legal remedy of money damages.

The death of the irreparable injury rule. Are you sure you want to remove The death of the irreparable injury rule from your list? The death of the irreparable injury rule. Published 1991 by Oxford University Press in New York.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12.

The irreparable injury rule says that courts will not grant an equitable remedy to prevent harm if it would be adequate . Professor Laycock was a professor of mine, and he is one of the most brilliant academics I ever studied under (and one of the most objective)

The irreparable injury rule says that courts will not grant an equitable remedy to prevent harm if it would be adequate to let the harm happen and grant the legal. Professor Laycock was a professor of mine, and he is one of the most brilliant academics I ever studied under (and one of the most objective). This book discusses and catalogues some 2000 cases on the irreparable injury rule andm in truth, is a pretty dry read. But it is fascinating from an academic perspective.

The irreparable injury rule says that courts will not grant an equitable remedy to prevent harm if it would be adequate to let the harm happen and grant the legal remedy of money damages. After surveying more than 1400 cases, Laycock concludes that this ancient rule is dead--that it almost never affects the results of cases. When a court denies equitable relief, its real reasons are derived from the interests of defendants or the legal system, and not from the adequacy of the plaintiff's legal remedy. Laycock seeks to complete the assimilation of equity, showing that the law-equity distinction survives only as a proxy for other, more functional distinctions. Analyzing the real rules for choosing remedies in terms of these functional distinctions, he clarifies the entire law of remedies, from grand theory down to the practical details of specific cases. He shows that there is no positive law support for the most important applications of the legal-economic theory of efficient breach of contract. Included are extensive notes and a detailed table of cases arranged by jurisdiction.

Faebei
Professor Laycock was a professor of mine, and he is one of the most brilliant academics I ever studied under (and one of the most objective). That the prior reviewer found a political agenda to this book is mindblowing. This book discusses and catalogues some 2000 cases on the irreparable injury rule andm in truth, is a pretty dry read. But it is fascinating from an academic perspective. Professor Laycock is simply explaining that the irreparable injury rule, which arose centuries ago due to the different jurisdictions of law courts and equity courts in England, no longer has any necessary applicability since the merger of law and equity in this country in (I think) approx. 1928. The book demonstrates that the rule is applied when there are separate policy justifications for its application, and it is not applied (and some exception is always found) when there is no separate policy justification for its application. It has been ages since I read this book whole, but I still use it in day to day practice to find cases whenever I have a case involving the irreperable injury rule. It never fails me.
Browelali
Laycock quotes 1% of case law showing the lack of application of the irreparable injury rule, but ignores 99% that applies it.
Laycock quotes cases out of context. For example, on page 30, note 38, he quotes (with tacit ridicule) an Ohio case (Ohio is a conservative court system)that says an injunction is legal. It is true most in personam orders are equitable, not legal. However, contrary to the impression Mr. Laycock leaves the reader, Ohio understood quite accuragely that courts of law issued injunctions by way of extraordinary writ and this was made clear had Laycock quoted the rest of the passage. A text without a context is a pretext.
Laycock quotes cases on page 29 notes 30-33, showing that courts are in disagreement about whether declaratory judgments are legal or equitable. This only shows that judges today are politically correct agents rather than stewards of the law. Declaratory judgments are neither legal nor equitable, they are statutory (creatures of the legislature, not of the judge made law of the judiciary).
On page 10, he quotes Tony Flew's falsifiability principle to shed doubt on the value of the irreparable injury rule as an effective decision procedure at law. However, Goedel (the logician) showed that if we limit our analysis to a restricted amout of axioms, then of course something cannot be proved or disproved or, i.e., cannot operate as an effective decision procedure. Therefore, Laycock's fundamental argument, using Flew's method, is a rigged argument.
An explanation for these errors is Laycock's hostility to extant Christian tradition in the law, especially in equity and restitution. His use of the atheist Flew shows his reading source of preference.
True to his and Flew's use of the falsification principle, the book would be convincing (just as the falsification argument is convincing) if one restricted one's reading only to the parameters of the book's covers.