Remedies Flashcards
Plaintiff can get any remedy even if they didn’t ask
Turner
Types of damages
Nominal, compensatory, punitive
A civil rights violation —- punitive
Does not alone lead to
Policy behind punitive damages
Deter and express public disapproval
Compensatory damages —-
Return P to where they were before harm
Exxon Shipping Holding
Appropriate ratio compensatory to punitive damages is 1:1
Takeaway from Carey
Due process violation itself is not a harm
Carey holding
In absence of proof of actual injury, P only gets nominal damages (for due process violation)
Rule from Carey- Damages are designed to..
Compensate victims for actual injuries caused by deprivation of rights
Carey dealt with what statute
Title 42 Civil Rights Act Section 1983
According to Carey what is the purpose of due process?
Prevent mistaken deprivation (not worth much on its own)
According to Carey, why is due process not worth much on its own?
Not every violation of it causes distress. Have to show evidence
The people bound under R65d2 are —
Parties, their agents, and those working in active concert/participation with parties/agents
What are preliminary injunction criteria?
Likelihood of success, likelihood of irreparable harm without injunction, balance of equities tips in favor, injunction in public interest
Permanent injunction criteria
success, inadequacy of monetary damages, balance of equities tips in favor, injunction in public interest
Walgreen Co is binding —-
Only in the 7th circuit
Walgreen Co ruled that injunctive relief was appropriate because —-
Damages were too speculative
Walgreen Co Rule
Choosing between remedies requires CBA of alternatives
Walgreen Co holding
Reasonable to choose permanent injunction over damages in some contract breach cases (like here)
What is the benefit of the injunction in Walgreen Co?
Shift burden of determining cost from court to parties (Walgreen knows at what price will break lease)
Walgreen Co is —- for when damages inadequate
Not the usual reasoning
Walgreen Co not —- injunction test but — it
Dispelling, evolving
The PLRA orders limiting prison population when
Crowding main issue/no other relief will remedy, extends no further than necessary to fix, narrowly drawn and substantial weight on public safety
Brown Holding
Court upheld injunction requiring reduction of CA prison population (exact plan up to state)
What was standard review argument in Brown
Clear error standard (don’t get to undo trial court fact finding) , dissent wants de novo Disagree about whether overcrowding as primary issue was Q of fact or law
What was reasoning for narrowly drawn in Brown
Just because positive effects beyond P class (sick prisoners) doesn’t mean fail narrow tailoring, all prisoners at risk
Hall is only binding in
5th and 11th circuits
De Novo meaning
Decide from scratch
Questions of law from trial court are reviewed —- by appellate courts
De novo
Prima facie review
Acknowledge record but make whatever decision you want
Clear/plain error review
Error obvious on appeal, affects substantial rights, AND damages reputation of proceedings
Affects substantial rights means..
Determines who wins
Questions of fact from trial court reviewed — by appellate courts
Clear error standard
Standards of review come from
Statutes or common law
Abuse of discretion standard
Clearly against logic and facts, fact finding may be right but wrong legal decision
(mixed Q law and fact or balancing tests) by trial court determine by appellate court using this standard
Abuse of Discretion
Substantial evidence standard
Evidence that would allow factfinder to make the decision (doesn’t matter if you disagree or think evidence outweighed)
Conclusive review
What lower court says stands
Hall Rule
Court of equity have inherent jurisdiction to protect their ability to render judgment
Hall holding
District court allowed to protect ability to give judgment by issuing interim injunction against undefinable class of persons
How is Hall different from Walker
Hall not named party on injunction
Hall court could restrict Hall because
Interfering with “property” of the court, actual notice, imperiled court ability to make binding injunction
Hall court rules that R65 not meant to —— and FRCP
Limit court power to issue injunctions, incomplete codification
What rule is at issue in Hall
65d, persons bound by ex parte injunction
Winter rule
Preliminary injunction test (likely succeed, likely irreparable harm, balance of equities and public interest favor injunction)
Winter holding
Reject preliminary injunction since equities in favor of Navy
Winter used —- review because
Abuse of discretion, public safety so outweighed injunction for whales that constituted abuse
Preliminary injunction test is not a —- because —
Balancing test, all must be met a minimum threshold
Preliminary injunctions are meant to —
Preserve the status quo
Winter found issue in using injunction to preserve status quo because
Navy had been testing there for years, what is status quo at question
Winter found that irreparable harm must be —-
Likely not just possible
What is lodestar calculation for attorney fees
Reasonable number of hours X reasonable rate
What case determined lodestar calculation for attorneys fees
Hensley
Venegas rule
Use lodestar calculation for attorney shifting rules
Venegas holding
Section 1988 not cap or reasonable limit on attorney fees in general (only for shifting)
Rule 68 says defendant can
Make settlement offer enforceable by court
Rule 68d says that if jury verdict —- then P must —-
Lower than settlement offer, pay own costs incurred after offer
42 U.S.C. 1988 b allows
Prevailing party on civil rights case to recover reasonable attorneys fees
Marek rule
Attorney fees in any cost shifting scheme subject to cost shifting provision of 68
Marek holding
A D not liable for post settlement offer attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 IF judgment less than settlement offer
Marek court says that attorneys fees are costs under 68 because
Plain meaning, in line with statute objectives and Congress silence on changing rules evidence
How is Marek in line with statute aims
Encourages civil rights suits/settlements not necessarily litigation
Marek dissent points out that the definition of costs in 68
Makes other FRCP rules with word costs inconsistent
