Remedies Final Mnemonic Flashcards
Punitive Damages: BMW v. Gore
“Real Ratios Control Punishment”
Real Ratios Control Punishment (RRC)
Reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct
Ratio of punitive damages to actual damages 10-1
Comparable Criminal or Civil sanctions for similar misconduct
Injunctions: Ebay v. Marcexchange
“Injuries Rarely Balance Publicly”
I: Irreparable Injury
R: Remedies at law are inadequate
B: Balance of hardships favor plaintiff
P Public interest not disserved
Medical Monitoring
“Some Harmful Toxins Prompt Risky Testing Procedures”
Significant exposure relative to the general population
Hazardous substance proven to be harmful
Tortious conduct of the defendant
Proximate result of exposure causes increased risk
Reasonable periodic testing warranted due to the risk
Procedures exist to detect the disease
Unconscionability
“No Fair Terms”
No Fair Terms
No Meaningful choice for one party
Contract terms are favorably unreasonable to the other party
Public Nuisance: People Ex. Rel. Gallo v. Acuna
“Stop Unlawful Gangs Carefully”
S-Substanial and unreasonable nuisance
U-Unconstitutionally vague– injunction must not be
G-Gang members’ illegal activities not protected by the First Amendment
C-Injunctions must not be overlooked
Maglica v. Maglica: Unjust Enrichment
“Services Valued, Not Benefits Counted”
Services Valued, Not Benefit Counted
Services rendered
Valued for their worth
Not based on the recipients benefit
Green v. Higgins: Unclean Hands
“Fraudulent Hands Can’t Guard Court Integrity”
F-Fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable conduct bars equitable relief
H-Hands must be clean to seek equitable remedies
C-Claim for equitable relief can be opposed with unclean hands as a defense
G- Misconduct can harm a Third party, not just the defendant
C- Court’s integrity is the focus, not protecting the defendant
Undue Influence
“Weakened Minds Push Agreements Fast”
Weakened mental state prevents free judgement (first condition)
Multiple representatives of the dominant party outnumber the weaker party
Pressure is excessive (e.g., urgency, serious consequences for delay)
Agreement discussion happens in an unusual time or place
Failure to consult counsel or third party
Laches: Stone v. Williams 1 & 2
“Delay Risks Prejudice, Fraud Blocks Defense”
Delay must be unreasonable (prong 1)
Reasonableness of delay analyzed
Prejudice to the defendant (prong 2)
Fraud by the defendant blocks laches defense
Blocking information (withholding) creates prejudice of the defendant’s own making
Constructive Trust: Simmonds v. Simmonds
Courts Construct Trust to Stop Unjust Riches or Return Property
Courts impose
Constructive Trust
To Stop unjust enrichment
Or to Undo wrongful taking
And return property to its rightful owner
Contempt
“Complex Fines Need Criminal Safeguards” My Cousin Vinny
Complex Fines Need Criminal Safeguards
Complex injunctions require procedural care
Fines: Noncompensatory= punitive, needing criminal protections
Noncompliance out-of-court requires jury trial and procedural safeguards
C- Civil vs. Criminal Contempt:
Civil: Coercive, purgeable, civil protections
Criminal: Punitive, non-purgeable, criminal protections
S- Summary Proceedings: In-court only; out-of-court requires safeguards
Mutual Mistake
“Mistakes Rescind, Payments Restitute, Writing Reforms”
M- Material mistake about an essential contract fact
A- Assumption: Basic and unallocated risk of the mistake
R- Restitution available for unjust enrichment, no consequential damages
C- Case Outcome: Rescission allowed due to mutual mistake (e.g., inadequate water supply)
Norcisa/(Subject Matter of Equitable Relief)
“Rare Situations Demand Success”
Rare Situations Demand Success
Remedy at Law is inadequate (general rule and exception)
Substantial right of the plaintiff will be impaired materially
Relief must not impose an Impossible burden on the court or Disrepute the court’s processes
Injunctive relief must have success in achieving practical result
