PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Injunctions
......Requirements in Equity
.........Balancing of Equities
11 Cards On This Topic:

The greater a P’s showing on either of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors, the less must be shown on the other to support prelim. injunction.

Trial court must balance relative harm to each party and exercise discretion in favor of party most likely to be injured.

No abuse of discretion in granting prelim. injunction against tobacco co. selling to non-Indians on trust lands held for Indian Band where People likely to succeed on merits and company showed no irreparable harm.

PI enjoining W from publishing false and defamatory statements and confidential personal info about H on Internet and contacting his employer except to call 911 re crim conduct was overbroad and invalid prior restraint.

Evidence in record did not support factual findings necessary to establish injunction against Internet publishers of DVD decryption software was warranted under Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

Court did not abuse discretion in using relative hardship doctrine in refusing to grant injunction ordering removal of encroachments from another’s land.

W's right to privacy does not outweigh ex-H's right to express uncensored opinion about her actions, or Enquirer's right to publish it; prelim injunc'n rev'd as invalid prior restraint.

In evaluating interim harm, trial court compares injury to P in absence of injunction to injury D likely to suffer if injunction granted.

In evaluating motion for prelim. injunction against statute enforcement, courts must balance potential harm to public cited by legislative body against harm suffered by P from enforcement.

Where there is evidence supporting trial court’s conclusion as to balance of harm, irrelevant on appeal that conflicting evidence presented.

Pending trial on merits, court balances respective equities of parties to determine whether D should or should not be enjoined from exercising right claimed.