This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Coercive remedies → an injunction or specific performance order is available from a court sitting in equity. 3 types of injunctions: restorative injunctions, prophylactic injunction, and structural. ii.Damages → to compensate the П for losses sustained in violation of their rights. CL says that damages cannot be too remote, speculative or uncertain. iii.Restitution → the goal of restitution is to restore property to its rightful owner by returning the П to a position held before a wrong, or to disgorge from a Δ any unjust enrichment occasioned by the wrong to the П. iv.Declaratory relief → purpose is to obtain a declaration of the rights or legal relations between the parties SCOPE OF LEGAL AND EQUITABLE REMEDIES a. A plaintiff must establish: i. the substantive entitlement to relief; and ii.a legal basis for the desired remedy; and iii.factually the requirements for the desired remedy b. Limitations on Remedies i. Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club 1. F: Orloff П brought an action for injunctive relief against the Los Angeles Turf Club Δ after he was ejected from the Turf Club Δ and ordered not to return. 2. R: The Civil Code of CA establishes the law of the state respecting the subjects to which it relates, and its provisions are to be liberally construed with a view toward affecting its objects and toward promoting justice. PREVENTIVE INJUNCTIONS a. A preventive injunction is a court order designed to avoid future harm to a П by controlling a Δ’s behavior. It is preventive in the sense that it is avoiding the harm. b. Inadequacy of Remedy at Law → courts traditionally cite the maxim that equity will not grant relief when the remedy at law, usually damages, is adequate. In cases involving interest in real property, courts often say that the uniqueness of each parcel of land makes damages inadequate to compensate losses. i. Thurston Enterprises, Inc. v. Baldi 1. F: Baldi П brought an equitable action to (1) determine the scope of rights in an easement which Baldi П had deeded to Thurston Δ; and (2) to enjoin Thurston Δ from using heavy trucks for hauling fill onto Thurston’s Δ property by way of the easement. 2. R: In an equitable action to determine the scope of rights in an easement, the remedy will be limited to future conduct affecting the reasonable use of the easement and possession of the servient estate. ii.Wheelock v. Noonan
or real estate interests. 2. 4. a professional free-lance photographer. F: K-Mart П sued to have Oriental Plaza Δ tear down unapproved construction that constricted parking and obstructed the view of K-Mart’s П store from the highway. Triplett v. R: While a court of equity ordinarily will not redress a trespass. F: Galella П. he is entitled to injunctive relief. it will do so under peculiar circumstances where the trespass is continuous and a multiplicity of suits at law would be required for complete relief. 1. Onassis 1. to be removed in the spring. seeking damages for alleged false arrest and malicious prosecution and an injunction against the interference with his business by the alleged acts of Onassis Δ is resisting his efforts to photograph her. ii.2 1. Beuckman 1. R: The general rule under Indiana law is that if the П can show great injury and no adequate remedy at law. brought an action against Onassis Δ and the three US Secret Service agents. K-Mart Corp. F: Keilman П brought an action for injunction and damages against Muehlman Δ. 2. goodwill. . such as an injury to reputation. 2. Keilman 1.Muehlman v. R: The owner of the dominant estate has the duty to maintain and repair an easement and cannot make a material alteration in the character of the easement if the alteration places a greater burden upon the servient estate. A pattern of repeated trespasses requires a showing that the Δ is likely to continue to repeat the invasions in knowing violation of П’s rights. R: Irreparable harm occurs when money damages cannot compensate for the injury. but instead huge quantities of rock were deposited and not removed as agreed. A continuing trespass requires a showing that the Δ will not follow a demand to vacate. Balancing Interests and Practicality Considerations i. 3.Galella v. F: Wheelock П gave Noonan Δ a license allowing him to place a few large rocks on his lots. F: Triplett П brought an action for injunctive relief against Beuckman Δ requiring Beukman Δ to remove a causeway access to an island which Beuckman Δ had purchased from Triplett П and to replace it with a bridge. ii. d. Irreparable Harm i. c. Inc. asserting that Muehlman Δ started and raced the engines of his two semi-trailer trucks at all times during the day and night immediately adjacent to Keilman’s П residence and that such actions constituted a nuisance. 2. v Oriental Plaza.
but instead. Cirocco** ii.Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. R: In an action by a landowner for relief from a permanent. with the understanding that if the balance is even. v. Sara Creek Property Co. and where success on the merits has been demonstrated. Δ became so offensive to surrounding neighbors as to create a nuisance. F: Van Wagner П contended that S&M’s Δ cancellation of a lease of billboard space on the side of a building was ineffective because only an owner making a bona fide sale could terminate the lease. Δ to enforce the terms of a K between IV. Atlantic Cement Company 1. R: Permanent injunctive relief is available where there is no adequate remedy at law.3 2.Boomer v. smoke.Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. iii. . F: Sara Creek Δ attempted to breach a provision in Walgreen’s П lease contract prohibiting Sara Creek Δ from leasing space to another pharmacy in the same mall. v. v. 2. the injunction will be denied. Walgreen Co.eBay Inc. 2. 1. F: The United States П sued Oakland Cannabis Buyer’s Cooperative Δ seeking to enjoin the cooperative Δ from distributing and manufacturing marijuana in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Public Interest and Tribunal Integrity i.United States v. and vibration from the Atlantic Cement Co. before she sold it to S&M Δ. unabatable nuisance. MercExchange ** e. with the burden of persuasion on the plaintiff seeking the injunction. ii. the landowner is entitled to a single recovery of permanent damages for the total economic loss suffered on his property. iii. S&M Enterprises 1. R: The point at which breach of a contract will be redressable by specific performance lies not in any inherent physical uniqueness of the property. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. 2. and Van Wagner’s П lease had not been terminated by the former owner of the building. П brought an action for specific performance against Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. the costs and benefits of each remedy must be weighed. in the uncertainty of valuing it. Entitlement i. Michaels. where the balance of the equities favor the moving party. 1. but no injunction will issue against the wrongdoer except one merely designed to assure the payment of such damages. F: Dirt. F: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. Oakland Cannabis Buyer’s Cooperative 1. iii. Graham v. R: In choosing whether specific performance or money damages are appropriate in a breach of contract case. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE a.
Inc. c. Δ. directing Cushman’s Δ to specifically perform covenants contained in a lease executed between Dover П and Cushman’s Δ after Cushman’s Δ decided to close its retail bakery business located in Dover’s П shopping center. Channel 17 Inc. when the automobile was delivered.4 the parties that allowed Niagara П to terminate Graver’s Δ contracting services “at any time for any reason. radio stations and a commercial printing business. b. Contracts for the Sale of Goods i. a cotton farmer. property. ** iii. R: A court may order specific performance by the estate of a deceased promisor who passed away before executing and delivering a deed to real property as provided for by contract. a corporation that owns and operates newspapers. 1. Inc.i. 1. 1. Inc.Lan Systems. Δ to enforce a contract to sell the assets. Inc. F: Weathersby П. ii. Sedmak П was told he could not purchase the automobile but would have to bid on it. v. Inc. Dover Shopping Center. ii. F: Sedmak П sued Charlie’s Chevrolet.Weathersby v.Wooster Republican Printing v. a cotton buyer. the modern trend is to grant performance in the case of a clear breach where the difficulties of enforcement are not great. 2. 2. R: Although specific performance will not ordinarily be granted where the duty to be enforced is difficult to supervise and continues over a long period of time. П brought an action for a mandatory injunction against Cushman’s Sons. R: As an equitable remedy. F: Henderson П entered into a contract with Baker whereby the former was to move in with the latter and take care of him for the remainder of Baker’s life. Gore 1. for specific performance of a . Δ for breach of contract and specific performance after Sedmak П allegedly entered into a contract with Charlie’s Δ to purchase a Corvette automobile for $15. Inc. Fisher 1. R: A court may decree specific performance as a buyer’s remedy for breach of contract to sell goods where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances. 2. brought suit against Gore Δ.” iv. Cushman’s Sons. v.Henderson v. F: Wooster Republican Printing П.Shubert Theatrical Co. 2.000 because. specific performance will not be ordered when the party claiming breach of contract has an adequate remedy at law. brought an action against Channel 17 inc. v. F: Dover Shopping Center Inc. Rath ** iii. and business of Channel 17 Δ. Fashioning Relief i. Netscout Service Level Corp. Sedmak v. Charlie’s Chevrolet.
Δ then refused delivery of the transformer to Ace П. ii. 2. for breach of a noncompetition clause in an employment contract Oliver Δ entered into with North Pacific П after Oliver Δ left his job with North Pacific П and went to work for another company. 2. 2. R: Where a conveyance is used to conceal assets from creditors and one of the parties to the conveyance falls victim to the wiles of the other. v.Campbell Soup Co.Jones v. П sued Aqua Chem. R: An employment contract which binds a person not to exercise his profession for a period of time in a particular area may be upheld if it is necessary to protect the legitimate interest of the person in whose favor it runs and does not impose an unreasonable hardship upon the person against whom it is asserted. Williams ** ii.Ace Equipment Co. iv. iv. R: Even though a contract may be perfectly legal. Furman Δ. R: Specific performance of contract will not be awarded where damages may be recovered and the remedy in a court of law is adequate to compensate the injured party.Geddes v. Δ for the purchase of a used 6000 KVA General Electric Transformer.North pacific Lumber Co. 1. Senter v. no relief can be afforded to the victimized wrongdoer and the parties are to be left as they stand. F: North Pacific Lumber Co. iii. Sony Corp. Stone v. Unclean Hands and Unconscionability i. a dentist. Inc. one of North Pacific’s П former employees. 2. Δ for specific performance of a contract for sale after Ace П allegedly entered into a sales contract with Aqua Chem. F: Ace Equipment Co. Laches and Estoppel i. V. Aqua Chem. П filed suit against Oliver Δ. F: Senter П. Oliver 1. Star Credit Corp. v. Inc. Wentz 1. EQUITABLE DEFENSES a. Inc. Furman 1. equity will not provide specific relief to any party who has driven too hard a bargain or obtained too one-sided an agreement. F: Wentz Δ contracted to sell carrots to Campbell П but instead sold them to Lojeski Δ. .5 contract which obliged Gore Δ to sell the cotton produced by him on 500 acres of land during the 1973 crop year. was held by her under a constructive trust. v. and Aqua Chem. Mill Creed Country Club ** b. ** iii. entitling both parties to legal relief.Danjaq LLC v. Inc. brought suit in equity to declare that a house and lot that Senter П conveyed by warranty deed to his nursing assistant.
ii. Hawes 1. 2. Greene 1. Inc. Duck Boat Tours. Bowen 1. the UCC provides that the court may either refuse to enforce the contract. excise an objectionable clause. П sued Gregg Δ seeking relief for Gregg’s Δ breach of contract. Head & Seemann. Ride the Ducks of Philadelphia.6 1.Cassim v. Inc. c. b. and that she would pay this amount to Head & Seemann П after selling the other home. a Medicare participating physician from the Medicare program. the Secretary of Health and Human Services. the government’s interests in stopping such surgeries are more compelling than the physician’s interests in his professional career. R: The election-of-remedies doctrine is an equitable principle barring one from maintaining inconsistent theories of relief. 2. Inc. after Bowen Δ decided to suspend Cassim П. INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS a. or limit the application of such a clause to avoid an unconscionable result. 2. F: Altom П brought a replevin action against Hawes Δ to recover certain household furniture which her ex-husband sold to Hawes Δ in violation of a separation agreement. ** ii.Altom v. F: Cassim П sued Bowen Δ. Sims v. Procedural Requirements i. VI. Substantive Requirements i. R: When a Medicare physician performs unnecessary surgeries.80. Election of Remedies i. F: Star П bought a freezer on time for $1. v. F: Sims П sued Greene Δ and asked the court for a TRO against him because Greene Δ was trying to usurp Sims’ П professional duties as the legitimate bishop of the First Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. F: Head & seemann. . R: Where the possibility of “oppression or unfair surprise” makes it necessary for a court to grant relief from an unconscionable contract. which in fact has a market value of only $300. Gregg 1. R: The bringing of a suit for one remedy is a manifestation of a choice of that remedy but it does not preclude the plaintiff from seeking another remedy instead if he has reasonable grounds for so doing and the defendant has not so altered his position as to make it unjust to permit the change.234. 2. LLC v. that she had equity in another home. and its underlying purpose is to prevent double recovery for the same wrong. after Gregg Δ represented to Head & Seemann П in writing that she wished to buy a home from them. requesting a preliminary injunction.
assaulted the master of the court and was adjudged to be in criminal contempt. P. City of Birmingham 1. F: Daniels П.In re Stewart 1. R. criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he or she saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses in his behalf.Ex Parte Daniels 1. 52(a). R: due process requires that one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges against him. R: A party. iv. F: the United Mine Workers of America Δ was found guilty of civil and criminal contempt after the UMW Δ went on strike during a national emergency. Civ. have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation. . P. F: Greenberg Δ appealed from a conviction of criminal contempt after he allegedly shouted at the judge and disrupted the court during the trial of one of Greenberg’s Δ clients.Matter of Contempt of Greenberg 1. She brought a habeas corpus action alleging that she was denied due process because she was denied counsel during the contempt proceedings. F: Walker П. 2. VII. Stewart Δ failed to reinstate the employee after being ordered to do so by a judge. R: A preliminary injunction cannot be maintained unless the court issuing it sets out findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds for its action as required by Fed. validly enjoined. ii. have the right to be represented by counsel. 2. United mine Workers of America 1. the court is allowed to conduct a summary proceeding in which the contemnor is not accorded notice of a hearing. Criminal Contempt i. became involved in an argument with the judge. was held in contempt for violating an injunction prohibiting his organization from parading without first obtaining a permit as required by a Birmingham City Δ ordinance. Walker v. 2.United States v. R: Under Fed. while appearing before a judge pro se. F: Stewart Δ was found guilty of contempt after he allegedly demoted one of his employees who had served on a jury. R: In cases of direct contempt and where the judge has personal knowledge of the behavior constituting contempt. 2. 42(a). a member of a civil rights organization. Crim. iii.7 2. v. R. CONTEMPT a. may not resort to self-help and violate the injunction but must seek a dissolution or modification of the injunction by proper judicial review. The UMW Δ appealed.
which is based on a violation of an injunction. R: The trial court has inherently broad discretion to hold an individual in contempt when the contemnor has acted contumaciously. R: Civil contempt sanctions. R: An order issued by a district court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings. 2. which it challenged as criminal rather than civil sanctions. does not survive the invalidation of the underlying injunction. Time—Share Systems. Bagwell 1. Darwin Construction Co. v. Schmidt 1. F: Behn Δ and Rainero Δ appealed fines of $10.LaTrobe Steel Co. in bad faith and out of disrespect for the judicial process. F: United Mine Workers Δ violated a trial court injunction several times and incurred substantial fines.United States v. must be either coercive or compensatory. v. F: Darwin Construction Co. R: A party to a pending proceeding may not appeal from an order of civil contempt except as part of an appeal from a final judgment. П obtained an injunction against the United Steel Workers of America Δ prohibiting the Union Δ and its members from engaging in any work stoppage in sympathy for another strike. iv. Civil Contempt and Coercive Civil Contempt i. United Steelworkers of America 1. The order was violated and the Union Δ was held in civil contempt. F: Schmidt Δ was found in contempt of a court order not to delete any data prior to a file save was to be performed by Time-Share Inc. . 1. Walker 1. v. Inc. Hill VIII. Δ brought a motion to set aside or reduce the fine that was levied against it for civil contempt after Darwin Δ failed to comply with an IRS П summons to produce documents. LaTrobe Steel Co. 2. whether coercive or compensatory. R: Substantial compliance to a court order is found where all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure compliance. R: A civil contempt decree. 2.000 each for violating a TRO enjoining them from conducting any blockade of Pro-Choice Network’s П health-care facility.United Mine Workers v.Pro—Choice Network v. and inadvertent omissions are excused only if such steps were taken. SPECIAL ISSUES IN EQUITY a. b. ii. 2. П during litigation over rights to ownership of computer software. if they are substantially serious. 2.8 2. iii. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Statutory Limitations on Discretion i.
prior restraint against distribution of pamphlets is particularly suspect. F: Hill П. П filed an action in equity to enjoin Willing Δ from demonstrating on a pedestrian pathway in downtown Philadelphia and declaring. R: The Endangered Species Act commands all federal agencies to insure that actions authorized. that Mazzacone et al. when it is determined that there is no adequate remedy at law. F: Pavilonis П appealed from the dismissal of two civil rights actions she had filed after a district judge dismissed Pavilonis’s П suits for being hopelessly vague and frivolous and enjoined her from filing any lawsuit in district court without authorization by a district judge. had stolen money from her. unsupported actions are filed against a defendant. 2. King 1. funded or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered species. and that . Board of Selectmen of Provincetown 1. 2. US Secretary of the Interior. Willing v. F: Mazzocone et al.Norcisa v. b. 2. Enjoining Speech or Litigation i. who were at one time employed as Willing’s Δ attorneys. R: Any system of prior restraints bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity and although in exceptional cases prior restraints may be constitutionally permissible.9 1. R: Equity will enjoin a criminal prosecution only when such an injunction is necessary to avoid the material violation of a substantial right of the plaintiff. brought an action to enjoin the Tennessee Valley Authority Δ from operating a dam across the Little Tennessee River. as the creation of a reservoir that would occur when the dam was operated would cause the extinction of a species of fish in violation of the Endangered Species Act.Mabe v. the court has equitable and supervisory power to protect the defendant from harassment and the court itself from the burden of processing frivolous papers. П. R: Equity will not enjoin defamation. 2. F:The City of Galveston and Park Board of Trustees П brought an action for injunctive relief against Mabe Δ to prohibit Mabe Δ from distributing pamphlets to the public listing the names and phone numbers of certain members of the Galveston City Council П and Park Board П. City of Galveston 1. while doing so. and an applicant’s indigence is irrelevant to the consideration of whether that person’s remedy at law is adequate. Mazzocone 1. R: Where numerous. F: Norcisa П claimed that her prosecution by the Town Δ for violation of the Transient Vendor Statute was unconstitutional.Pavilonis v. iv. ii. iii. 2.
2. 2. Del E. ii. F: Lim Δ.Enjoining Crimes 1. and Harrison П brought suit to permanently enjoin the operation and for damages alleging nuisance from pollution. a. Eastlake Construction Co. Webb Development Co. v. F: Meyer П filed a bill in equity for a mandatory injunction to require the removal of a non-fireproof building erected by Seifert Δ within a fire zone in which the erection of such buildings was prohibited by city ordinances. . Enjoining Nuisances 1. F: Spur Industries Inc. CONTRACT DAMAGES a. R: The courts may not vest within themselves the power to declare the repetition of criminal acts a public nuisance. the developer must indemnity the nuisance operator for his loss. Δ operated a shredding plant for the recycling of autos. Webb’s П development expanded in its Δ direction. b.10 injunctive relief can be practically imposed without unduly burdening the criminal process. Seifert a. c. Indiana Auto Shredders Co. b. b. who reportedly ran a gambling house. Enjoining Crimes and Nuisances i. Spur Industries. Δ operated a feedlot. F: Eastlake Construction Company П brought an action to recover monies allegedly owing on a construction contract IX. R: Where a developer brings people to a preexisting business which thereby becomes a nuisance that is enjoined. Introduction i. R: A permanent injunction will not lie in a pollution nuisance case unless either the polluter seriously threatens public health or causes substantial nonhealth injuries where the business cannot be operated to avoid them. contended that the State П could not bring an action to enjoin the gambling house’s operation as a public nuisance because gambling was not considered a public nuisance under the California Civil Code. b. Inc. Meyer v. Lim a. People v. Harrison v. Hess 1. R: An injunction will issue against a criminal act if the legal remedy for the crime is inadequate and the crime causes interference with property or other equitably protectable interests in the plaintiff. It became a nuisance after Del E. v. a. F: Indiana Auto Shredders Co.
Puritan Farms 2nd Inc. 1. c.Campbell v. R: The measure of damages in quasi-contract on a quantum meruit theory of recovery is the fair market value of the benefit conferred on the defendant. and Hess Δ counterclaimed. 845 UN Limited Partnership ** ii. F: Boyle П. contracted with S-M News Company Δ to exclusively sell 90. then this loss must be deducted from plaintiff’s expenditures. R: If full performance by a defendant would have resulted in a loss to a plaintiff. ii. Carborundum co. Δ after only 2 months on the job. F: Campbell П entered into an unenforceable contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority Δ and then sought reimbursement in quasi-contract when payment was refused. Inc. sought to enforce the liquidated damages clause in his employment contract. 2. Δ failed to ship the minimum quantity of its product in breach of its requirements contract with Lake River Corp. П. F: Carborundum Co.Gruber v.11 with Hess Δ. b. R: The general measure of damages for breach of contract is that the injured party is entitled to recovery of all damages that accrue naturally from the breach and to be put into as good a pecuniary position as he would have if the contract had been performed. Liquidated Damages i. iii. Land Sales Contracts i. Tennessee Valley Authority 1. Petrie Store Corporation 1. 1. Boyle v. Puritan Δ broke a lease agreement to rent milk trucks from Truck Rent-A-Center П. F:Gruber П. 2.Lake River Corporation v.000 sets of Christmas cards in a design which had been approved by S-M Δ and sued S-M Δ for breach of contract after S-M Δ refused performance.Donovan v. S-M News Company 1. R: So long as a liquidated damages provision is neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy. 2. Bachstadt . it will be enforced as written. Uzan v. who had been fired from his position as CEO of Petrie Stores Corp. 2. iii. a greeting card manufacturer. R: A minimum-guarantee clause in a requirements contract is unenforceable as a penalty when it is unreasonable and disproportional to actual damages. 2.Truck Rent-A-Center. ii. R: A liquidated damages clause in a contract will be sustained if the amount bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and if the actual loss is difficult to determine. v. 2. alleging damages for breach of contract.
and Roxas П cross-appealed on the proper measure of damages for conversion by Marcos Δ of buried World War II gold treasure discovered by Roxas П. 2. F: Hewlett П was awarded nominal damages after his barge was denied by Barge Bertie Δ. Marcos 1. Lane’s П house. and its market value cannot be determined. iv. 2. F: Long’s П automobile was damaged when McAllister’s Δ vehicle rolled down an incline and struck it. Cudahy Co.Long v. F: The Donovans П sued for both compensatory and punitive damages when a defect in title prevented Bachstadt Δ from performing under the contract he had signed to sell them a particular piece of realty. 2. where the converted property fluctuates in value. . then the measure of damages is its actual or intrinsic value to the owner. 1. Musulin ** v. iii. 2. Hewlett v.Lane v. 2. 1. McAllister 1. X. 2. and Mrs. Inc. is the highest value of the property between the time of conversion and the reasonable time after the person learns of such conversion.Roxas v. R: The measure of damages for a temporary injury is the reasonable cost of repairing the property.12 1. TORT DAMAGES a. and furniture were destroyed by a fire that was caused by Oil Delivery. R: A plaintiff is entitled to the cost of repairs of damaged property up to the property’s market value at the time of the casualty. R: If personal property is destroyed through the defendant’s negligence. R: If a motor vehicle is totally destroyed or the reasonable cost of replacement exceeds the market value of the vehicle after the injury.Carbasho v. excluding sentimental or fanciful value. Oil Delivery.’s Δ negligence. F: Mr. the measure of damages is the lost market value plus the reasonable use value of the vehicle for the period of obtaining a replacement. Miller v. clothes. ii. R: The measure of damages in a conversion case. jewelry. R: A buyer can recover benefit of the bargain damages when the seller breaches an executory contract to convey real property. b. Inc. Barge Bertie 1. Harm to Personal Property i. F: Former Philippine President Marcos Δ appealed from the judgment for Roxas П. Harm to Real Property i. F: Cudahy’s Δ salt mining operations resulted in Miller’s П inability to irrigate his farm.
United States 1. If. in fact.Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans v. F: Frankel П. Louisiana Gas Serv. The SS Zoe Colocotroni ** c. R: When a person sustains property damage due to the fault of another. brought suit to recover for Marilyn’s injuries suffered in an auto accident concurrently caused by an employee of the United States Δ which left her permanently mentally incapacitated. ii. according to the terms of the sale. damages are measured only by the difference between the value of the property before and after the harm. v. . F: Knuppel Δ removed gravel from land Kroulik П obtained by adverse possession. 2. F: The Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans П appealed an award which did not fully compensate them for the cost of restoring a building that they owned which was damaged in a fire caused by Louisiana Gas Service Company Δ. iv.Kroulik v.Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. were reserved for Laube П. including the cost of restoration that has been or may be reasonably incurred. at his election. Maritrans GP Inc. unless there is a reason personal to the owner for restoring the original condition or there is reason to believe that the plaintiff will. or. the cost of restoring the property in its original condition is disproportionate to the value of the property or economically wasteful. 2. the difference between the value of the property before and after the harm. 1. R: The negligence of one parent does not bar recovery by the other parent for the loss of services of their child or for medical expenses incurred in caring for him. make the repairs. iii. Co. however. Thomas Δ cut down and removed one hundred walnut trees that. Knuppel 1. 1. he is entitled to recover damages. R: The proper measure of damages for the wrongful destruction of trees that have no special use is the commercial market value of the trees at the time of taking. R: The proper measure of damages for the appropriation of minerals by a nonwillful trespasser is the value of minerals in place. 2. 2. Thomas 1. Personal Injury Damages i. F: Wilburn П sued to recover for damages he sustained when a huge wave hit the ship on which he was working and swept him overboard during a storm. guardian of Marilyn Heym. F: After Laube П contracted to buy Thomas’ Δ farm.13 ii.Laube v.Wilburn v. Frankel v.
Dupont 1. filed a wrongful death action against States Marine Lines. a longshoreman. 2.Sprang Industries. Mrs. however.000 in damages for loss of consortium. R: A wife in a loss of consortium action may not recover damages for the tangible loss of support or savings which the husband might recover in his own right. Dupont П was awarded $1. Δ the vessel’s owner. 1. F: After Mrs. d. the Boston Symphony Orchestra canceled her scheduled performance at the BSO. Grand Union Stores of Vermont 1. Inc. R: A damage award for future expenses is valid if supported by sufficient evidence. Sprang’s П subcontractor delayed in unloading the XI.Debus v. v. 2. Damages for Inquiries Resulting in Death i. States Marine Lines. Inc. iii. Dupont’s П husband suffered permanent disability from being run over by a loader. Boston Symphony Orchestra 1. 2. 2.White Construction Co.Healy v. 1. F: Debus П sued Grand Union Stores of Vermont Δ when a pallet of boxes full of cans of pet food fell on top of her. Redgrave v.026. was killed while working aboard a vessel. his wife Moragne П. F: When Torrington Construction Co. R: A professional performer may receive consequential damages if she proves with sufficient evidence that a breach of contract proximately caused the loss of identifiable professional opportunities. F: After Moragne. Moragne v. it subcontracted with Sprang П for the delivery of steel for its construction needs. F: After protests arose over Vanessa Redgraves support of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The evidence. R: A plaintiff may recover compensatory damages for loss of future earning capacity if he produces competent evidence suggesting that his injuries have narrowed the range of economic opportunities available to him. White 1.’s bid was accepted for the construction of a highway. Foreseeability i. must be sufficient to support an award of damages. . F: The father of seven-year-old Healy П was awarded damages for future medical and education expenses to be incurred because of a car accident caused by White Δ. R: Per diem damage arguments to the jury are allowed and are not overly prejudicial if they are made under the ordinary supervision and control of the trial court. iv. v. ii. v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.14 2. 2. LIMITATIONS ON COMPENSATORY DAMAGES a. Inc. R: An action lies under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties.
2. b. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. F: Evra П sued Swiss Bank Δ for consequential damages caused by the Bank’s Δ failure to electronically transfer funds upon Evra’s П request. the employee retains the right to reject the offer without having the possible earnings of the offered substitute employment charged against him in mitigation charges. it offered her a starring role under essentially the same terms in a “western” to be filmed in Australia. Rockingham County v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation 1. 1. 2. Cannon v.Youst v. the County Δ canceled the contract. Inc. 2. iv. forcing Torrington to perform the work itself. 1. iii. F: Garcia П sued Wal-Mart Δ for injuries she sustained after being knocked over by a cart. 2. 2. R: After an absolute repudiation or refusal to perform a contract by one party to a contract.. Yankee products Co. F: Shortly after awarding Lutten П a contract to construct a bridge. ii.15 steel. An injured party is obligated to exercise that care usually exercised by a person of ordinary intelligence and . 1. F: Lobermeier П sustained a ruptured eardrum while talking on GTE’s Δ telephone as a result of a lightninginduced electrical charge.Lobermeier v. R: A party may not recover consequential damages when such were consequences of the defendant’s negligence which were avoidable by the plaintiff.Parker v. and Wal-Mart Δ appealed based on the district court’s failure to include language on mitigation of damages in instructions to the jury. R: Mitigation of damage instructions do not need to be given when a plaintiff cannot afford the recommended treatment which would have mitigated the damages or when it would not have been reasonable for the plaintiff to employ another to do her job in an attempt to mitigate economic damages. the other party cannot continue to perform and recover damages based on full performance.** ii.Evra Corp. Luten Bridge Co. Swiss Bank Corp. R: Where an employer offers different or inferior substitute employment to a wrongfully discharged employee. Certainty i. v. F: After Twentieth Century-Fox Δ failed to honor its agreement to Parker П to star her in a locally produced musical. Longo** c. iii. General Telephone Company of Wisconsin 1. Avoidable Consequences i.Garcia v. Torrington sued for damages caused by Sprang’s П delay in performance.
. Alder v. R: The measure of damages under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is the net benefit received by the defendant. Pyeatte П contended that Mr. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. F: Helfend П claimed damages for personal injuries suffered in the collision of an RTD Δ bus with his auto.** iii. Pyeatte Δ was responsible in restitution for the value of his education. Pyeatte 1. he contracted with Drudis П to finance the development of the device. ii. who injured in a car accident. Goodrich 1. 2. ii. d. Inc. ii. RESTITUTIONARY REMEDIES a. 2.Kelner v. Kelner П. Collateral Source Rule i. such payment should not be deducted from the damages which he would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor. F: Hueper П sued Goodrich Δ to recover medical expenses gratuitously rendered to his minor son. under the same or similar circumstances. who subsequently leased a portion of the same premises to another party. Helfend v. R: If an injured party receives some compensation for his injuries from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor.Hueper v. Prezioso 1. 2. b. Berg Lumber Co. was retained on a contingency fee basis to recover insurance proceeds for the jewels. 2. 610 Lincoln Road. R: the collateral source rule is applicable to derivative claims of parents for gratuitous medical services provided to their minor children. F: After Alder П invented a three-dimensional motion picture device known as a polyscope. F: After 610 Lincoln Road’s Δ jewels were stolen in a burglary. v. when deciding to seek or to forego medical treatment. 1. R: An attorney’s recovery is not limited to quantum meruit where the attorney is employed on a contingency fee basis and discharged by his client without cause. Benefits Acquired by Agreement or Mistake i. R: The plaintiff seeking restitution may return any consideration he has received in order to receive restitution. The Unjust Enrichment Concept i. F: Monarch Accounting Supplies Inc. XII. which was subsidized by her.Cross v. an attorney. 2. Drudis 1. 2.16 prudence. П leased an office building from Prezioso Δ.Monarch Accounting Supplies. Pyeatte v. F: Mrs. Inc. R: Restitution based on quasi-contract is available if services were rendered pursuant to an expectation of compensation therefore. 1.
the tort is waived and the action is treated as a sale. Inc. 2. R: Where. alleging that Felder П wrongfully took possession of his hydraulic plant. even though more than three years had expired since Coca Cola’s Δ failure to return Taylor’s П property on demand. and sold it. R: The appropriate statute of limitations for timely filing of a claim upon an alleged breach of implied contract of sale is the four-year period set forth in the California Commercial Code §2725(1). 2. Taggart 1. as a deterrent. 2. as such recovery was not limited by the amount called for in their employment contract after Rosenberg П was discharged without cause. 2. П. as well as exemplary damages where appropriate. R: Under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. П brokers. . F: Rosenberg П contended he could recover in quantum meruit for his work as Levin’s Δ attorney. iv. a broker is entitled to a constructive trust of the sale proceeds of stock mistakenly delivered to a client who innocently sells the stock.Winslow. through no wrongdoing. Cohu & Stetson. a defrauded individual may recover the defrauding individual’s unjust enrichment in quasi-contract. in a case of conversion. Δ failed to return certain cylinders owned by Russell Taylor’s Fire Prevention Service. R: An attorney discharged without cause may recover in quantum meruit only the maximum fee called for in his contract.Rosenberg v. Inc. F: When Coca Cola Bottling Corp. F: Winslow. converted it to his own use. Inc. Cohu & Stetson. Showronek 1. v. c. Waiver of Tort and Suit in Assumpsit i. 1. v. sought to recover the value of securities which were inadvertently registered in Showronek’s Δ name and delivered to Showronek Δ who. F: A real estate broker falsely purporting to represent a seller failed to submit a buyer’s offer but instead purchased the land for himself at a lower price and immediately resold it at a substantial profit to the buyer. F: Reeth Δ was sued for the value of various goods for which he did not pay but counterclaimed. v. 2.17 iii. Russell Taylor’s Fire Prevention Service Inc. realizing a substantial profit.Felder v. R: By waiving the tort and suing in assumpsit. Reeth 1. the measure of damages is the market value of the property upon resale by the wrongdoer. Taylor П sued Coca Cola Δ for the cylinders or their value. Levin 1. H. sold the securities and made a substantial profit.Ward v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp. ii.
R: A constructive trust and an accounting are appropriate equitable remedies to elicit detailed information regarding alleged bribes received by an elected official and to recover such funds by a government body that is the elected official’s employer. he is liable for what the injured has lost and is deprived of any profit he may have gained. Constructive Trust i. F: When the facts of his adulterous relationship became known to his wife. Lipton 1. iv.Brand v. Mr. iii. to administer the tickets.Stauffer v. R: If the wrongdoer is consciously tortious in acquiring a benefit at the expense of the injured party. Stauffer Δ. and the . equity will consider the obligee as a beneficiary and will prevent unjust enrichment of other innocent beneficiaries through a constructive trust. Nye & Nissen Co. 2. Stauffer П agreed to transfer their joint property of land and house to Mrs. d. Δ used Olwell’s П egg washing machine without the owner’s permission or knowledge in order to make up for a manpower shortage during World War II. 2. F: Alleging that Barrett Δ. 2. Frederick Sidmonds failed to maintain a life insurance policy with his first wife.18 iii. Stauffer 1. F: Nye & Nissen Co. Barrett 1. 2. received bribes during his tenure as Clerk. has a contractual obligation to designate a particular person as beneficiary. R: A motion to dismiss an action for a constructive trust upon tickets will be denied if a party agrees to act as constructive trustee. a former client. Simonds 1. ii. Stauffer Δ for $1 at the insistence of Mrs. a repentant spouse is entitled to reconveyance of property through the remedy of a constructive trust where the other spouse is unjustly enriched because of undue influence. Mary Sidmonds П as the beneficiary while Frederick’s second wife Δ and daughter Δ were innocent beneficiaries of other policies.Simonds v. F: Brand П sued for the imposition of a constructive trust upon Jets season tickets as he had Donnenfeld Δ refused to distribute the tickets as he had promised he would prior to gaining control over the tickets. 1. F: Contrary to the terms of the separation agreement. the County of Cook П sought an accounting of the amounts received by Barrett plus a constructive trust on behalf of county citizens. 2. R: Even in the absence of a confidential relationship. upon lapse or cancellation of insurance. followed by replacement with new insurance. County of Cook v.Olwell v. R: If an insured.
his employer. Earl Δ and Alice Δ. the original owner of that money is entitled to share proportionately in the proceeds of the policy. e. on which Ann П and Wylie Δ had made improvements. F: Thompson Δ embezzled money from G & M П.Robinson v. divorcing Wylie Robinson Δ. R: One permitting another to make improvements on his property is liable for the value thereof. asserted rights in property belonging to Wylie’s Δ parents. LIMITATIONS ON RESTITUTIONARY REMEDIES a. Equitable Liens i. F: Middlebrooks П sought imposition of a constructive trust on the proceeds of a loan she made to the Lonases Δ. F: Ann Robinson П. R: Where a portion of the premiums of a life insurance policy is paid with wrongfully acquired money. R: A promise to repay a loan without a present intent to do so constitutes a fraud and allows for imposition of a constructive trust. using a portion of these funds to pay premiums on a life insurance policy. 2. and the trial court imposed a constructive trust on the insurance proceeds. Middlebrook v. 2. Thompson 1. . who refused repayment. Lonas 1. ii. 2. Robinson 1.19 transfer of the tickets was made in reliance on that promise which was subsequently breached. Tracing i. G & M Motor Company v. XIII.