Equity Does What It Does--For the Parties

In reading an old treatise's discussion of preliminary injunctions, I came across this quotation:

An interlocutory injunction is merely provisional in its nature, and does not conclude a right, while the perpetual injunction is a final decree upon full hearing, and concludes all parties in interest.

Thomas Carl Spelling, Treatise on Extraordinary Relief in Equity and at Law § 31, at 42 (1893). It's reminder of the principle that equitable decrees were conclusive for the parties, not for the world at large. That's why the old equity cases and treatises spend so much time on figuring out who the proper parties are and whether they've all been joined. Because the scope of the parties, including those represented by the parties, will be the scope of the court's decree.

For contemporary implications, of course, see Multiple Chancellors.

Comments

[Siphosethu]

Thomas Carl Spelling's treatise emphasizes that equitable decrees bind only the involved parties, not the world at large. Hence, historical equity cases focus extensively on identifying and joining proper parties to ensure the decree's comprehensive applicability.

[Devin Watkins]

I wonder how it worked for partnerships with variable membership. Do injunctions apply to future partners?

[LibertyLancer]

Bray and his ilk would have us believe that this practice encourages forum shopping, as if plaintiffs were leisurely browsing for the perfect court to suit their whims. Nonsense! It's a matter of seeking justice in a system rigged by activist judges and their woke minions.

[Commenter_XY]

WRT to equity solutions, why isn't that used more often? It seems tailored where other litigation is not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Where do you think it could or should be used more?

[Ridgeway]

One of the basic principles of equity is that equitable remedies are only available where a legal remedy (read damages) would be unavailable or inadequate.

That was where a lot of people went off the rails regarding COVID vax mandates. People were calling for the courts to enjoin employers from firing employees for refusing the vax, and to require reinstatement of those already fired. These would be "equitable" remedies.

However, in employment law, it has long been accepted that damages are a sufficient remedy for an unlawful termination, so equitable remedies like that are only very rarely available, and definitely not in the case of run-of-the-mill employees.

[John F. Carr]

The parties only rule should work well if I want an order granting me access to the bathroom of my choice. Less well if I want an order keeping the wrong people out of the bathroom of my choice. And for many administrative law cases probably not well at all. If there is a pot of federal money to be divided among hospitals we have a zero-sum game.