Also known as: balance of equities · balancing the equities · equitable balancing · balance of hardships
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A comparative analysis of the hardships that granting an injunction would impose on the defendant and that denying it would impose on the plaintiff. Courts weigh this factor along with others to decide whether injunctive relief is appropriate in tort actions.
Brenda Booth operates a small factory whose emissions slightly discolor the paint on nearby homes owned by Beatrice Brown. Brown proves a continuing trespass but the cost to install emission controls would force Booth to close and lay off twenty workers. The court weighs the modest harm to Brown against the severe economic hardship to Booth and the community and denies the injunction.
Spur Industries ran a cattle feedlot for years before Del E. Webb began building a retirement community nearby. Webb proved the feedlot created a nuisance but the court balanced the hardship of shutting down an established business against the harm to new residents and required Webb to pay Spur's relocation costs before issuing the injunction.
In 1956, Spur’s predecessors in interest developed feedlots about ½ mile south of Olive Avenue in an area between the confluence of the usually dry Agua Fria and New Rivers, some 14 to 15 miles west of the urban area of Phoenix. By April and May of 1959, the Northside Hay Mill was feeding between 6,000 and 7,000 head of cattle and Welborn approximately 1,500 head on a combined area of 35 acres. In 1960, Spur purchased the property and expanded the feedlot operation from approximately thirty-five acres to one hundred fourteen acres by 1962, eventually maintaining between twenty thousand and thirty thousand head of cattle at the time of trial. Del E. Webb Development Co. began planning Sun City, a retirement community, in May 1959 after purchasing twenty thousand acres of farmland for fifteen million dollars. Construction of a golf course started that September. Homes were first offered in January 1960. The first residents moved in during 1960. By the time of trial, Sun City had a population of approximately fourteen thousand people, and the development had extended south to within five hundred feet of Spur's feedlot north of Olive Avenue. Residents of Sun City began complaining about odors and flies from the feedlot, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day, and Webb encountered sales resistance starting around 1963 in the southwestern portion of the development. Webb attempted to buy the feedlot from Spur but the parties could not agree on a price. Webb then filed suit alleging that the feedlot was a public nuisance because flies and odors drifted over the southern portion of Sun City, rendering in excess of one thousand three hundred lots unfit for residential development. The trial court, after proceedings that included an advisory jury later discharged and special actions in the Arizona Supreme Court, found the feedlot to be a nuisance, permanently enjoined its operation, and awarded damages to Webb. Spur appealed from the injunction and the damages award, while Webb cross-appealed from the trial court's refusal to award attorneys' fees. During the appeal process, Spur agreed to and did shut down its operation without prejudice to the final determination.
View caseGolden State Bottling acquired a bottling plant and continued operations after the prior owner had been ordered to reinstate a discharged union employee. The court balanced the hardship of imposing the reinstatement order on the new owner against the public interest in enforcing labor remedies and held the successor subject to the injunction.
Kenneth L. Baker was discharged by Golden State Bottling Co. on August 16, 1963. On June 10, 1964, the National Labor Relations Board found that the discharge constituted an unfair labor practice and ordered Golden State, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns to reinstate Baker with backpay. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board's order with respect to Baker on December 2, 1965, and a final decree was entered on November 27, 1968. On January 31, 1968, All American Beverages, Inc. purchased Golden State's soft drink bottling and distribution business. All American continued to carry on the business without interruption or substantial changes in method of operation, employee complement, or supervisory personnel. The sales contract conditioned the purchase on Eugene Schilling, Golden State's secretary and manager who had discharged Baker, agreeing to remain employed by All American for one year as general manager. In a subsequent backpay specification proceeding to which both Golden State and All American were parties, the Board found that All American had purchased the business with knowledge of the outstanding Board order and was a successor liable for reinstatement with backpay. The Board ordered All American to reinstate Baker and directed that Golden State and All American jointly or severally pay Baker a specified sum of net backpay. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced the order, one judge dissenting, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. When Baker was discharged he was Golden State's leading driver-salesman. On October 1, 1964, Golden State began converting its top driver-salesmen to distributors who realized net profits after deduction of operating expenses from the purchase and resale of products. The Board found that Baker would have become a distributor on October 1, 1964, but for his discharge and therefore computed his gross backpay subsequent to that date on the basis of what he would have earned as a distributor.
View caseMercExchange proved eBay infringed its patent yet the district court denied a permanent injunction. The Supreme Court required the lower court to balance the hardship of forcing eBay to redesign its platform against the harm to MercExchange from continued infringement and to consider the public interest before deciding whether to grant relief.
eBay Inc. operates a popular Internet Web site that allows private sellers to list goods they wish to sell, either through an auction or at a fixed price. Petitioner Half.com, now a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay, operates a similar Web site. Respondent MercExchange, L.L.C., holds several patents, including a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. See U.S. Patent No. 5,845,265. MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, as it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found that MercExchange's patent was valid, that eBay and Half.com had infringed that patent, and that an award of damages was appropriate. eBay and Half.com continue to challenge the validity of MercExchange's patent in proceedings pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Following the jury verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange's motion for permanent injunctive relief, 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances, 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the appropriateness of this general rule, 546 U.S. 1029 (2005).
View caseThe Natural Resources Defense Council sought to enjoin Navy sonar exercises that risked harming marine mammals. The Supreme Court balanced the hardship of restricting essential military training against the environmental harm and held that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against the requested injunction.
The United States Navy planned to conduct fourteen Composite Training Unit Exercises and Joint Tactical Force Exercises in the Southern California Operating Area between 2007 and 2009. These exercises were part of certifying strike groups for overseas deployment. They required extensive use of mid-frequency active sonar, the only proven method for detecting modern diesel-electric submarines operating on battery power. The Navy had conducted similar training with mid-frequency active sonar in the same waters for forty years. In February 2007 the Navy issued a 293-page environmental assessment concluding that the exercises would not significantly affect the environment. The assessment predicted eight Level A harassments of common dolphins each year. It also predicted 274 Level B harassments of beaked whales per year. The assessment stated that even these effects could be avoided through the Navy's voluntary mitigation measures. The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. They alleged that the Navy had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare a full environmental impact statement. The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring all use of mid-frequency active sonar during the remaining exercises. The President granted the Navy an exemption from the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Council on Environmental Quality approved alternative arrangements under the National Environmental Policy Act. The district court then modified the injunction to permit training subject to six additional mitigation measures. These measures included a mandatory 2,200-yard shutdown zone around any detected marine mammal and a requirement to power down sonar by six decibels during significant surface ducting conditions. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the modified preliminary injunction. The Navy filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court seeking to vacate the injunction. The Court granted certiorari.
View caseA court compares the relative hardship the defendant would suffer if an injunction is granted with the hardship the plaintiff would suffer if the injunction is denied. The analysis also considers the character of the parties' conduct and the interests of third parties and the public.
Supporting sources
No. Even after a tort is proven and damages are shown to be inadequate, the court must still weigh whether an injunction is appropriate by comparing the hardships to each party and other equitable factors.
Supporting sources
No. The need for a jury to resolve disputed facts does not make injunctive relief unavailable. The court may submit factual issues to the jury and then apply the balancing of equities to decide whether an injunction is appropriate.
Supporting sources
When third parties have relied on the defendant's conduct and would suffer substantial losses if an injunction issues, that hardship is weighed against the plaintiff's harm. Courts may condition relief on payment of those losses or deny the injunction when the balance favors the third parties.
Supporting sources
…the official reporter for Arizona Supreme Court decisions. Parallel citation is 494 P.2d 700. : The court discusses the balancing of equities between an industrial use that predates residential development and the harm to the later-arriving residents, a key holding in nuisance law regarding "coming to the nuisance." Spur…