Enjoin Law Explained: Everything You Need To Know

Enjoin Law: What It Is

Enjoin law, also known as injunction law, is a specialized area of law that deals with the granting of injunctions, or court orders that require a person to do or refrain from doing a specific act. Enjoin law has its roots in equity, which emerged as a separate body of law in medieval England to provide remedies that were not available at law. Enjoin law is based on the principle that a legal right may not be fully protected by a legal remedy, such as monetary damages, and that the court may grant an injunction to prevent irreparable harm to a party seeking relief.
Enjoin law encompasses a variety of types of injunctions, including preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, preventive injunctions, and mandatory injunctions. A preliminary injunction is issued to temporarily restrain a party from taking a specific action until a final determination can be made in the case. A permanent injunction is issued after a trial on the merits and permanently prohibits a party from engaging in particular conduct. A preventive injunction is issued to prevent harm to a public interest, such as the protection of the environment . A mandatory injunction is issued to compel a party to take a specific action, such as to repair a building or remove an obstruction from a roadway.
For example, a party seeking an injunction may allege that the party being enjoined is planning to build a structure on their property, such as a dock or fence, in violation of a property line. In this case, the attorney may be seeking a preliminary injunction, which would prevent construction on the property line until the matter is resolved in court. Another example might involve the sale of goods that are suspected to have been misappropriated from the owner, and that are being sold by a third party, in this case, the attorney may be seeking a preventive injunction, which would prevent the third party from selling the misappropriated goods.
Enjoin law is an important tool for attorneys who are seeking to protect the rights and interests of their clients. It provides a means of obtaining relief when an injury is imminent or ongoing, and monetary damages may not be sufficient to remedy the harm. By understanding the key concepts of enjoin law, attorneys can effectively seek injunctions to prevent harm to their clients and bring their cases to a successful resolution.

The Aim of Enjoin Law During Legal Action

The Objectives of Enjoin Law in Civil Cases
Aside from the main purpose of the injunction to prevent harm or prevent irreparable damage, which was discussed above, injunction could also be used to either compel compliance with an act or compel parties to do a particular act. In federal court, it is limited to injunctions issued to enforce or prevent violations of the federal laws which are named specifically in Title 18 of the United States Code, thirty five of which would be available to prevent injury to the government itself. The only exception to this that is not specified in Title 18 is tortious violations which affect the constitutional rights of US citizens and selecting which law to use is determined by the facts of the case.
While federal courts can only grant these types of injunctions in civil cases, state courts can grant injunctions for any action in which it would provide relief to the plaintiff or prevent the defendant from committing or continuing to commit a tort against the plaintiff. These can be considered largely as a convenience; if the possibility of damage is imminent and not doing so would result in some type of irreversible damage, even without it being a violation of the law, state courts can grant such injunctions to stop them.
Enjoining orders are primarily used in civil cases to maintain the status quo between parties to prevent excessive losses. Imagine, you hired movers to come the day before you were married, to put all of your stuff onto a truck, then move it onto another truck when you are married and headed to your destination. The person hired to do this was negligent; they drove far too fast into a ditch, and although the truck remained unharmed, its contents did not. You would find yourself fighting to get them to return items damaged or try to force the moving company’s insurance to pay out as they were either damaged past repair, or missing altogether. However, without an injunction, the items would be scattered somewhere in pieces or damaged, and you would be hard-pressed to prove that they were ever in your possession.
Enjoining orders serve a useful purpose in our legal system; they serve as a stop-gap to prevent irreparable harm or damage to a plaintiff. Like all of those who order injunctions for the same reasons, you will find them to be of great use in civil litigation or other civil matters.

Categories of Injunctions in Enjoin Law

In the complex landscape of enjoin law, the use of injunctions—judicial orders that either compel or restrain an action—is a common tool in the attorney’s arsenal. These injunctions can vary in nature and scope, with each type serving a distinct purpose depending on the circumstances of the case. One common form of injunction is the temporary restraining order (TRO). This type of injunction is typically issued in emergency situations where immediate action is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. A TRO is generally short-lived, usually lasting just long enough to allow the affected party to prepare for a preliminary hearing. The preliminary injunction is another frequently used tool in enjoin law. This type of injunction is more permanent than a TRO and is issued after a preliminary hearing. Unlike the TRO, which is issued without giving the other party a chance to respond, the preliminary injunction requires both parties to present evidence. The order lasts until a final decision is made by the court or could potentially be permanent if it is subsequently converted into a permanent injunction after all evidence has been presented. Finally, there is the permanent injunction. This type of injunction is issued after a full hearing and is meant to provide a final resolution to the issue at hand. The permanent injunction generally remains in effect until the court’s judgment is satisfied or the order is modified or terminated.

How Enjoining Orders Are Handled In Courts

Enjoining matters are generally discretionary with the Court, unless a statute or contract as a matter of law grants standing to seek injunctions. In deciding whether or not to enjoin competition between two businesses, the court will generally weigh the harm that the plaintiff will suffer from failure to issue the injunction against the harm the defendant will suffer if the injunction is granted. In Industrial Research v. Wysong (Tex.App./Dallas 1983, no writ), the court set out factors the trial court must weigh in a motion for injunctive relief: (1) The nature of the injury to the requesting party; (2) the nature of the injury to the opposing party or others if the court issued the injunction; (3) The issuing of an injunction would present a greater risk of irreparable harm to the defendant than to the plaintiff; (4) The plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law; and (5) The granting of the injunction will not disserve the public interest. These same factors are applied to non-compete covenants. The burden of proof in challenging a covenants enforceability is on the party challenging it.

The Steps Involved With Getting An Enjoining Order

Obtaining an injunction (or "enjoining order" ) is a legal process that requires you to file a lawsuit in your local circuit court seeking an injunction. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff will name the Defendant and allege that the Defendant is committing an act that violates Alabama law. The Plaintiff (individual bringing the lawsuit to court) then requests the Judge to enter a temporary restraining order without notice to the defendant prohibiting him or her from behaving in the unlawful manner. The Plaintiff will provide the Judge evidence that they have suffered damage from the Defendant’s behavior and request that the Court hear evidence as to why it should not grant a preliminary injunction order under Rule 65. The Plaintiff will then present to the Judge witnesses, physical evidence, etc., to prove that the Defendant committed the act alleged and why the Judge should issue a preliminary injunction. Injunctive relief in place of damages is at the discretion of the trial court, whose decision is subject to reversal if the court deems that it abused its discretion in weighing the likelihood of success on the merits and comparing that likelihood with the hardship that injunctive relief would cause the defendant . A prerequisite for obtaining a permanent injunction is that the plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists no adequate remedy at law, meaning that monetary damages will not fully compensate the plaintiff for the injury it has sustained or the injury it is likely to sustain. Clark v. Perry County Commission, 811 So.2d 564 (Ala. 1st Cir. 2001). Once a plaintiff shows that it has no adequate remedy at law, a presumption arises in favor of injunctive relief. Id. Although a plaintiff is not obligated to prove irreparable injury, such a showing is important: "[T]he existence of some injury because of loss of business during the pendency of the action can not be considered in comparison to the injury that will result to the appellees if the injunction is continued, . . . the balance clearly favors reversal here where irreparable injury to the appellants outweighs all other considerations." Ex parte Scott, 469 So.2d 610, 613 (Ala. 1985).

Pitfalls and Restrictions of Enjoin Law

Like any area of the law, enjoin law is not without its challenges and limitations. Common issues with enjoin law include enforceability, appeal process, and potential for abuse or misuse of injunctions.
Enforceability
When a party obtains a temporary or preliminary injunction, the court orders that certain actions are prohibited during the pendency of the case. However, this affords the noncomplying party almost free range to engage in prohibited behavior without significant repercussions. The quagmire surrounding the need to prove contempt of a court order under state and federal law places a burden on the party seeking enforcement of the injunction. An injunction is enforceable in a manner akin to enforcement of the terms of a contract. With respect to preliminary injunctions involving the abuse of intellectual property rights, especially with regard to patent infringement, many parties find themselves in a difficult situation when attempting to enforce patent injunctions. Although a scintilla of clarity has been provided by the United States Supreme Court, implementation still remains an issue. Parties seeking to enforce such injunctions must demonstrate that the infringer literally infringes part of the patent as covered by the injunction. Existence of the injunction does not create a rebuttable presumption of infringement and the party seeking to enforce the injunction also bears the burden of demonstrating that the infringer has not avoided infringement by changing the product in a manner that was not foreseeable by the court at the time it issued the injunction.
Appeal Process
Just as enforcement of injunctions may be problematic, enjoining parties from proceeding with their acts is equally difficult. Despite a trial court’s granting of a preliminary or temporary injunction, the courts are willing to allow appealing parties to engage in certain acts, despite contempt motions, while the appeal is pending. In fact, prohibitions placed on the appealing party due to the injunction are lifted pending appeal if the appealing party establishes the following: (1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not entered; (3) the injunction will not cause a substantial harm to others; and (4) it would not undermine the public interest. Once an injunction is appealed, trial courts have been known to modify injunctions, thereby increasing the burden to enforce them.
Potential for Abuse or Misuse of Injunctions
The proverbial sword cuts both ways in enjoin law. Parties may, and sometimes do, engage in the strategic use of injunctions to impose unfair burdens on an opposing party. Temporary restraining orders, for example, may be used to restrain a competitor from launching a new product, despite the fact that the competitor may actually prevail following a full hearing on the matter. The potential for abuse of temporary orders is also evident in the patent arena. A preliminary injunction halting alleged patent infringers from proceeding with their infringing activities may allow a patent holder to preserve an improper monopoly or gain bargaining power over settlement negotiations. For example, it is generally accepted that if a defendant prevails at trial, it may be entitled to attorneys’ fees and even a preliminary injunction may be issued against the patent owner who engaged in inequitable conduct. Even when patent holders secure an injunction, it may be difficult to obtain damages spanning the time period covered by the injunction if it is later determined that the patent is invalid or that its claims cannot be enforced. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly common for infringers to declare bankruptcy in order to prevent enforcement of injunctions.

Examples of Enjoin Law In Practice

Understanding enjoin law is best accomplished through example. Enjoin law has been applied in a wide range of cases, involving a myriad of business disputes and has been effective and used in a variety of endeavors.
One such noted case is that of Cardinal Health Inc v. AcandS Inc.pdf In this case, enjoin law was used to prohibit the transfer of potentially dangerous tort liability. The court stated "[w]arranting it such an ‘extraordinary remedy’ under the law." Ultimately the court dismissed the tort claim "because of the particularity and severity of the harm to be suffered" by the plaintiff if the chapter 11 bankruptcy plan was allowed to go through. The text of the decree further indicates that the loss of the $13 million dollar tax refund would be "immediate." Cardinal Health Inc v. AcandS Inc.pdf Though this case occurred many years ago, it remains an often cited case in regard to enjoin law.
Another example of the application of enjoin law arises from California v. Wallace as a means to reach corporate officers as an extension of their corporation in a corporate veil piercing claim. The corporate veil is pierced "a doctrine that holds that the corporation and its shareholders are ordinarily severally liable for corporate obligations only to the extent of their respective investments in the company," and thus allows a plaintiff to reach the personal assets of a corporate officer. California v. Wallace, PDF This case highlights efforts to reach an owner’s personal tort liability when an illegal act is committed in the course of business. It’s also an example of when the application of enjoin law reaches officers or directors personally when fraudulent activity occurs in the corporation.
The case of Goss International Corp. v. ManRoland Druckmaschienbefal P.M.B.A., No. C03-0589MJP, 2005 WL 3111303 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2003) PDF demonstrates another application of enjoin law that can be found in contracts. In this case , the plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant violated the noncompetition clause of an asset purchase agreement. The court granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction against the defendant "for the duration of [the] non-compete agreements." Goss International Corp. v. ManRoland Druckmaschienbefal P.M.B.A., No. C03-0589MJP, 2005 WL 3111303 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2003). It’s important to note that while the conduct occurred after the execution of the contract the court held that the "court has no discretion when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction" if the moving party satisfies the standard. стандарт. It should be noted though that this case like many others was adjudicated by federal court under the diversity jurisdiction:
Additionally, some examples of the application of enjoin law that are less easily identifiable are those found in federal employment policy. Federal employment policy outlines the protections afforded to employees under the National Labor Relations Board "NLRB" or "Board."
The current general rule of the Board prevents employees from filing more than one unfair labor practice charge based on the same conduct before the Board. (See 29 CFR §102.9(a)) Tsai v. Denny’s, Inc., No. SA-2731, 2006 NLRB LEXIS 213, 2006 WL 2370690 (N.L.R.B. June 15, 2006). Additionally, in Mack Motors, Inc., the general rule was held by the Board to bar claims arising between complainants and an employer when brought a second or subsequent time on matters already adjudged. Mack Motors, Inc., 105 N.L.R.B. 1279 (June 18, 1953). The exception to this general rule was stated by the Board, for "charges based on a different alleged violation, or based on new and independent facts." Tsai v. Denny’s, Inc., No. SA-2731, 2006 NLRB LEXIS 213, 2006 WL 2370690 (N.L.R.B. June 15, 2006). In this case though the test for a preliminary injunction was not explicitly stated by the Court; there is no mention that the Court exceeded its authority in granting the injunctive relief.