Also known as: injoins · injoined · injoining · enjoin
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
To direct a party by judicial order to refrain from or perform a particular act. The order prevents ongoing or threatened violations of legal rights when monetary relief would be inadequate.
The City of Fairview operates a waste transfer station next to a public soccer complex. Dust and odor regularly reach the fields and interfere with community recreation. A group of parents files suit seeking to stop the emissions. Because the parents have not shown harm different in kind from that suffered by the general public, the court denies their request to enjoin the station.
Midnight Power learns that the trustee of a family trust plans to sell trust property in a manner that would violate the trust terms. Midnight Power petitions the court to stop the sale before it occurs. The court grants the request and enjoins the trustee from committing the breach.
Indigo Textiles announces it will guarantee the debts of an unrelated startup, an act beyond its articles of incorporation. A shareholder brings suit to halt the guarantee. The court permits the shareholder to proceed with the request to enjoin the unauthorized corporate action.
A state environmental official continues to issue permits that violate federal clean-water standards. An affected landowner sues the official in federal court for prospective relief. The court allows the suit to proceed to enjoin the ongoing federal-law violation.
Shareholders sue to stop Indigo Textiles from completing an unauthorized merger. All affected parties are before the court. The court determines that an injunction is equitable, sets aside the merger, and awards damages for losses caused by the attempted transaction.
Ambler Realty owns land that a new zoning ordinance restricts to residential use. The company sues the village seeking to prevent enforcement of the ordinance on the ground that it destroys commercial value. The court refuses to enjoin the ordinance because the zoning measure is not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
The Village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation that adjoins and is practically a suburb of the City of Cleveland. Its estimated population is between 5,000 and 10,000, and its area spans from twelve to fourteen square miles, with the greater part consisting of farm lands or unimproved acreage. It lies roughly in the form of a parallelogram measuring approximately three and one-half miles each way and is traversed east and west by three principal highways and two railroads. Ambler Realty Co. owns a tract of land containing 68 acres situated in the westerly end of the village. This tract abuts on Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate railroad to the north. Adjoining this tract on both the east and the west, restricted residential plats have been laid out upon which residences have been erected. On November 13, 1922, the Village Council adopted an ordinance establishing a comprehensive zoning plan. The ordinance divides the village into six use districts denominated U-1 to U-6, three height districts denominated H-1 to H-3, and four area districts denominated A-1 to A-4. Appellee's tract is classified as U-2 for the first 620 feet north of Euclid Avenue, U-3 for the next 130 feet, and U-6 for the remainder. Enforcement of the ordinance is entrusted to the inspector of buildings under rules and regulations of the board of zoning appeals. The board holds public meetings, keeps minutes of its proceedings, and possesses authority to interpret the ordinance in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, while penalties are prescribed for violations. Ambler Realty Co. filed suit alleging that the tract has been held for years for sale and development for industrial uses for which it is especially adapted. The bill further alleged that unrestricted market value is about $10,000 per acre but limited to residential purposes the value does not exceed $2,500 per acre, that the first 200 feet back from Euclid Avenue has a value of $150 per front foot if unrestricted but not in excess of $50 per front foot if limited to residential uses, and that the ordinance confiscates and destroys a great part of its value while deterring prospective buyers. The bill sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance. The district court overruled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the suit was premature. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and void and enjoined its enforcement.
View caseA private party may maintain the action only when the party has suffered harm different in kind from that suffered by the general public. A public official or agency may also bring the action on behalf of the state or a political subdivision.
Supporting sources
A court may enjoin the trustee from committing the breach. The court may also compel performance of duties, order an accounting, or require the trustee to redress the breach by payment or restoration of property.
Supporting sources
A shareholder may sue the corporation to enjoin the act. The court may then enjoin or set aside the act if equitable, provided all affected persons are parties, and may award damages other than anticipated profits.
Supporting sources
No. Under the Ex parte Young doctrine a federal court may entertain a suit against a state officer for prospective injunctive relief to end ongoing violations of federal law.
Supporting sources
…refused injunctive relief but erred in granting declaratory relief to Roe. Pp. 129-166. (a) The principle that a court may not enjoin enforcement of a statute unless the plaintiff shows that he is immediately threatened with irreparable injury is not applicable where the plaintiff attacks the facial validity of the…