Search

Imagine the Supreme Court issuing an emergency order that signals interest in departing from precedent, as if foreshadowing a change in the law. Seeing this, should the lower courts start ruling in ways that also anticipate the law of the future? They need not do so in their merits rulings. That much is clear. Such a signal does not create new binding precedent. Rather, it reflects the Justices’ guess about the future of the law—and what if that guess is wrong? Yet for a lower court ruling on a temporary stay or injunction, the task seems to call for a guess about a future decision and hence a future state of the law. And if the Justices have already made such a guess in a parallel case, doesn’t the lower court have the answer it needs? Not necessarily, this analysis shows. It looks closely at the architecture of stays and injunctions in the federal courts, while drawing upon ideas presented in a rich new compilation of essays, Philosophical Foundations of Precedent. Intriguing questions for theory arise, in turn. For instance, should an earlier judicial guess ever be deemed binding on a later guess? That would not be stare decisis, of course—but could there be such a thing as stare divinatis? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most dramatic exercises of a court’s equitable authority is the nationwide injunction. Although this phenomenon has become more prominent in recent years, it is a routine fixture of the jurisprudence of federal courts. Despite the frequency with which these cases arise, there has been no systematic scholarly or judicial analysis of when courts issue nationwide injunctions and little discussion of when they should issue such relief. This Article presents the first comprehensive account of when nationwide injunctions issue. Earlier attempts to answer this question have focused exclusively on challenges to federal regulatory action and have concluded that the domain is one of unconstrained judicial discretion. By contrast, this Article considers not only cases involving the federal government but also those exclusively between private parties. The conclusion from this expanded focus is that courts determining the geographic scope of injunctions in disputes between private parties are largely guided by a single principle: The injunction should be no broader than “necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” While the “complete relief” idea has echoes throughout equitable jurisprudence, it proves particularly robust at organizing the conditions under which nationwide injunctions issue. The Article then examines the body of cases involving the federal government to test the explanatory power of the complete relief principle. Although there is more variation, here too complete relief provides a useful tool for categorizing seemingly disparate cases under a common classification scheme. The Article concludes by arguing not only that the complete relief principle is descriptively useful for focusing debates about nationwide injunctions but also that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 should be amended to codify the principle as a formal limit on the appropriate geographic scope of an injunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The hot news misappropriation doctrine permits a plaintiff to seek time-limited injunctive relief against an alleged misappropriator in order to promote the reporting and dissemination of noncopyrightable information. While the hot news remedy may be a powerful tool in theory, it has proven to be elusive in practice, as courts struggle mightily to determine the optimal length of injunctive relief on the rare occasions that they actually try. A review of nearly a century's worth of case law suggests that it may not be the doctrine's failure leading to nonapplication of the remedy, but rather the remedy's failure leading to nonapplication of the doctrine. Still, all hope should not be lost for the protection of hot news. In the absence of judicial clarification or legislative action, parties that gather and produce noncopyrightable information can protect their investments by establishing contractual relationships with those who consume their products. If misappropriation occurs, contractual rights help to broaden the scope of claims that can survive federal copyright preemption and aid in defining the scope of relief for aggrieved parties. By adopting a hybrid hot news misappropriation and contractual approach, parties that disseminate noncopyrightable information can largely avoid the uncertainty of ex post judicial determination of a remedy, revitalizing a doctrine that can have a profound impact on protecting their investments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A brusque opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court in a patent case has launched a revolution in the law of equitable remedies. The Court's opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. asserted that it was merely upholding "traditional principles" regarding when injunctions should issue. But in circuit after circuit and for subject matter ranging from federal constitutional law to state tort law, lower courts have understood eBay to abrogate longstanding approaches. Focusing on the law for permanent injunctions, this Article examines the eBay opinion and the far-reaching changes that have resulted. For a better perspective on these changes, this Article discusses how courts historically have addressed equity's traditional concerns with risks of irreparable injury and the balance of hardships. Finally, this Article provides a normative account of the structured sets of equitable presumptions and safety valves that current understandings of eBay threaten to sweep aside. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents abstracts on legal topics which appear in the "Columbia Law Review," including a test for permanent injunctions, U.S. Constitutional safeguards for federal jurisdiction, and an examination of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Skilling v. U.S. regarding honest services fraud.

Articulates a framework for assessing standing for injunctive relief based on case law following the United States Supreme Court case 'City of Los Angeles v. Lyons.' Need for the plaintiff to demonstrate a credible threat of future harm where government conduct was authorized by a policy, practice or custom.

Addresses issues pertaining to class action litigation in the 20th century, with emphasis on the extent to which class action litigation can bind by means of preclusion or injunction. Reference to the decision made in the 1985 Supreme Court case Phillips Petroleum Co. versus Shutts; Information on class action suits; Conditions under which class action suits are filed.