Category: 

What Is a Temporary Injunction?

Article Details
  • Written By: John Kinsellagh
  • Edited By: Michelle Arevalo
  • Last Modified Date: 27 July 2014
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2014
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
More bank robberies occur on Friday than any other day of the week.   more...

July 30 ,  1945 :  The USS Indianapolis was torpedoed after dropping off key components of the Hiroshima atomic bomb.  more...

A temporary, or preliminary, injunction is a court order issued to a party that requires him to either act or refrain from taking certain action until after a trial on a disputed matter can be held. After a hearing is conducted on the issue, if warranted, a court may make a temporary injunction permanent in nature, or it may dissolve the injunction. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo between two parties, so that one of the parties does not suffer irreparable injury as a result of the actions of another, while a determination of legal issues is pending in a court action.

Ad

For example, Smith and Jones have been adjoining landowners for many years. A stream runs through their property line that Smith has used to irrigate his crops. Jones sells his property to Hadley, who proclaims one day to Smith that the stream is actually on his property and that he intends to damn it up the following morning. If Smith were to file suit in court against Hadley for a determination of their property boundary, he may have to wait many days for an ultimate decision to be rendered, yet in the meantime, his crops would likely wither from a lack of water. In this instance, Smith’s remedy at law is inadequate and he could apply to the court for a temporary injunction against Hadley, which would prevent Hadley from damning the stream until the legal issues surrounding the property dispute are decided.

An injunction is characterized as equitable relief, since, in certain circumstances, a party’s remedy at law is inadequate to prevent imminent, irreparable injury. In the example above, even if Smith were to ultimately prevail against Hadley on his court case, any money damages awarded would be of scant use to him if he could no longer water his crops. Accordingly, a party seeking a temporary or preliminary injunction must demonstrate that he has a likelihood of success of prevailing on the merits of his court case, and that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the court issuing a temporary injunction.

A temporary injunction is a provisional remedy issued by a court to grant extraordinary relief on a short-term or temporary basis. Once a trial on the underlying dispute is held, a court may convert its temporary order into a permanent injunction. A party who has been aggrieved by a permanent injunction may appeal the determination to a court of appeals.

Ad

Discuss this Article

starrynight
Post 2

@ceilingcat - I agree that injunctions are sometimes necessary. However, I think they are a sad testament to our legal system. It takes so long for anything to actually get done! If it didn't take that long for cases to be heard, injunctions wouldn't be necessary!

I do think, however, that it is a good thing that people who are "wronged" by an injunction can file an appeal. I think it's possible for courts to get things wrong, especially in civil cases. At least if you have an injunction wrongfully filed against you, there is something you can do.

Although I suppose in some cases, the damage has already been done. Like in the example given in the article. What if there was a specific, timely reason Hadley wanted to damn the river? If he appeals the injunction and wins, he's still lost valuable time.

ceilingcat
Post 1

I'm glad that the person seeking the injunction has to prove that they have a good chance of winning their case. I could see a lot of people abusing the injunction if they didn't!

If you didn't have to have proof to seek an injunction, I think the amount of frivolous lawsuits would increase a lot. I can imagine a situation where you might only need an injunction for a few days. Then it wouldn't matter if you won the case or not. Meanwhile, the other party would be injured by an unwarranted injunction.

But since proof is necessary, I think this idea makes a lot of sense.

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email