Originally courts granted only prohibitory injunctions, on the grounds that the performance of affirmative orders could not be easily compelled or supervised. In the 19th cent., though, affirmative (mandatory) injunctions began to be used, and they are now granted in unusual circumstances. Injunctions issued while an action is pending are termed preliminary, or interlocutory; they are intended to protect the plaintiff's interest so that a final judgment will not be worthless, and they cannot, for the most part, be reviewed by higher courts. If irreparable injury would result even before notice of a hearing could be served, the court may grant a temporary restraining order, which is binding on the defendant until a hearing can be held. A final or perpetual injunction is part of the final judgment of the court, and may be issued after all the evidence has been heard.
Injunctions, like most remedies of an equitable nature, are usually granted by a judge sitting without a jury. The broad discretion courts have enjoyed in using this power has, however, been limited by statute in many areas of the law. An injunction is essentially a personal order, and a defendant who disobeys may be punished for contempt. An injunction in force may be terminated or modified by the court.
Injunctions are today granted in many circumstances where courts of equity formerly refused to act. Thus, courts have ordered the performance of the terms of a contract, or the payment of legal damages by a defendant, sparing the plaintiff the need to seek execution of a judgment. Injunctions have long been used to abate nuisances. The use of the injunction in labor disputes has been a matter of great controversy in U.S. history.
In the late 19th cent. employers were often granted injunctions against strikes or boycotts when they alleged that the purpose of labor's activity (e.g., unreasonably limiting the employer's freedom by requiring him to hire only union members) was illegal. The power of federal courts to enjoin union activity was restricted by the Federal Anti-Injunction (Norris-LaGuardia) Act of 1932, and many states passed similar laws. Later legislation, however, including the 1947 Taft-Hartley Labor Act and the 1959 Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, restored much of the power to use labor injunctions.
In civil proceedings, a court order compelling a party to do or to refrain from doing a specified act. It is an equitable remedy for harm for which no adequate remedy exists in law. Thus it is used to prevent a future harmful action (e.g., disclosing confidential information, instituting a national labour strike, or violating a group's civil rights) rather than to compensate for an injury that has already occurred. It also provides relief from harm for which an award of money damages is not a satisfactory solution. A defendant who violates an injunction may be cited for contempt. Seealso equity.
Learn more about injunction with a free trial on Britannica.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|