Law Outlines Remedies Outlines
This attack outline and major outline covers a variety of topics as taught by Professor Douglas Laycock, the author of the Modern American Remedies casebook. Two of the authors of the outline received A's in the class.
The major outline is separated into sections covering Damages, Injunctive Relief, Immunities, Declaratory Judgments, Restitution, Contempt, and Attorney's Fees. Each section has a general overview, and summary charts are used where appropriate. All major cases covered are cited...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Remedies Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Major Outline
Remedies – UVA Law
Prof. Laycock, Fall 2016
Strategy:
Big Picture: lump claim/parties into groups that can easily be disposed of based on similar facts
Alternative Grounds: don’t hedge, but be sure to note alternative grounds and ambiguities
Make sure you address every party and all theories of liability (see liabilities/COA sheet)
Always evaluate strength of arguments, but don’t hedge and be decisive
Consider which possibile remedy (if >1 available) will be best for the plaintiff
Themes, Policy, and History:
Remedy:
Economic Theory vs. Corrective Justice
Economic Theory: remedies outcomes should be used to create proper incentives that create economically efficient outcomes (optimal number of violations)
Criticism: sometimes leaves those wronged not fully compensated, also morality
Corrective Justice: Compensate because it is just; reduce violations of law to smallest possible number
Criticism: sometimes creates wasteful overdeterrence
LAYCOCK: everything takes both into account, but one will be primary (often come out the same way). More judges prioritize justice than law & economics. But see Posner.
Writ System: old writs (with their own rules) have been replaced with one single civil COA
Why do we compensate K expectancy rather than just reliance?
Economy treats future values as present values. You can borrow against a contract.
Promises rely in ways that are hard to measure and that can approach full value of expectancy.
Moral or conventional sense of what promises mean.
Substantive law of contract commits court and parties to situation post-performance, not to situation pre-contract, and remedies should reflect that. Contracts work better if both sides can assume they will generally be performed.
Efficient breach theory does not explain compensating expectancy
Freedom of Contract vs. Abuse/Efficient Outcomes:
We want to let sophisticated parties have freedom of contract, but not to the extent that it is subject to abuse
See Kearney and limitations on damages cases
Law/Equity:
Judicial Discretion:
Jury Fallibility
The Rightful Position
Pp. xxiii-xvii, 1-18
Damages
Rightful Position
{
Rightful Position: P is entitled to recovery that puts him in the position he occupied before the injury.
Specificity (Hatahley; see also uncertainty Bigelow, Glendale Federal)
Lesser of Two Rule: P gets lesser of market value or replacement cost. See In re September 11th Litigation.
Exception: For special purpose property, replacement cost even if greater. (Trinity Church real property & King Fisher Marine chattels; rule in In re September 11th Litigation)
See also environmental cases for varying views on the rightful position
Expectancy vs. Reliance:
Contracts: Expectancy is default rightful position in contract (see UCC section).
See UCC buyer and seller defaults
Torts: No expectancy in tort (Smith) EXCEPT in fraud cases (in most states).
}
United States v. Hatahley (10th Cir. 1958 p. 11) – Specificity & Standard
FACTS: government took and killed special Indian horses, Indians didn’t mitigate because they didn’t have $, lost other livestock. Emotional distress claim.
D Court:
Awarded $395 for each horse (replacement cost was $300)
Awarded $3500 for emotional damages for each plaintiff
Awarded half of the value of the lost livestock since they couldn’t figure out what was lost because of killed horses
Precision/Specificity/Standard: remedy must be grounded in legal standard with sufficient facts and reasoning to justify the damages amount so as to put P in the rightful position.
But see: Excessive precision. At some point it is not economically efficient to litigate to perfect accuracy.
E.g., Mass Torts: formulas avoid need for individual damages hearings. D strategy—destroy class by forcing every individual P to prove their precise damages, but requires specificity.
Abstract losses (e.g. anguish): Lower, but still existent, specificity requirements. Usually go to jury because they can pull a number out of thin air. Judge can’t.
APPLICATION: horse remedy pulled out of thin air.
Proximate Cause: must show how the harm lead to each particular claim for damages, and to what extent
APPLICATION: Trial court erred in finding 50% of other livestock costs for no reason (too speculative)
Mitigation: No compensation for losses after time by which plaintiff could reasonably have been expected to mitigate.
APPLICATION: Indians’ damages cut off at time when they should have had replacement horses.
But see Alaska Case: fisherman didn’t pay child support because of bad business, D court said get a real job, AK Supreme Court reversed saying that due to cultural differences, no proof that it would be better
Emotional Distress: must be calculated plaintiff by plaintiff, and explain reasoning (Laycock: medical/psych. fees, missed work, pain normally judged by jury)
OUTCOME: remand for new trial on damages
Value as the Measure of Rightful Position
Pp. 18-35; Supp. Preface, 1-3
In re September 11th Litigation (S.D.N.Y 2008 p. 18)
Lesser of Two Rule: Plaintiff is awarded lesser of market value or replacement cost (alternatively, the easier one to calculate).
POLICY: P is made whole in least expensive way
Exception: Special Purpose Property (NY): you get replacement costs even if they are greater. See also Trinity Church. Requires:
(1) The improvement must be unique and must be specially built for the specific purpose for which it was designed
(2) There must be a specific use for which the improvement is designed and the improvement must be so specially used
(3* Most Important) There must be no market for the type of property and no sales of property for such use; and
LAYCOCK: WTC had a market, even if it was a limited one (few could afford it)
In practice, if this is satisfied, courts will find other ones satisfied as well
(4) The improvement must be an appropriate improvement at the time of the...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Remedies Outlines.
This attack outline and major outline covers a variety of topics as taught by Professor Douglas Laycock, the author of the Modern American Remedies casebook. Two of the authors of the outline received A's in the class.
The major outline is separated into sections covering Damages, Injunctive Relief, Immunities, Declaratory Judgments, Restitution, Contempt, and Attorney's Fees. Each section has a general overview, and summary charts are used where appropriate. All major cases covered are cited...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started