The neglected defense of undue hardship (and the doctrinal tr ai n wreck in boomer v. Atlantic Cement)

Journal of Tort Law

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2011, Pages

  Laycock, Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859551033     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19329148     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/1932-9148.1123     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (159)

1. Guido Calabresi & A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1089 (1972).
2. Chesarone v. Pinewood Builders, Inc., 186 N.E.2d 712, 715 (Mass. 1962) (holding that diversion of water should be enjoined unless "cost of an alternative is outrageously disproportionate to the benefit to be derived");.
3. Cox v. City of N.Y., 193 N.E. 251, 252 (N.Y. 1934) (refusing to order reconstruction of destroyed bridges carrying highway over railroad track, where cost of reconstruction would greatly exceed value of plaintiff's easement entitling him to use the bridges);.
4. M.T. Van Hecke, Injunctions to Remove or Remodel Structures Erected in Violation of Building Restrictions, 32 TEX. L. REV. 521, 527-29 (1954).
5. Ariola v. Nigro, 156 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ill. 1959);.
6. Ridgway v. TTnT Development Corp., 26 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000);.
7. the discussion of nuisance cases, and especially of Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870 (N.Y. 1970), infra notes 22-26, 35-84 and accompanying text.
8. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24-26 (2008) (holding that Navy's interest in practicing sonar detection greatly outweighed plaintiffs' interests in watching, photographing, and studying marine mammals);.
9. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 316-20 (1982) (remanding for determination whether district court abused its discretion in refusing to order immediate end, pending application for permit, to Navy's discharge of pollutants into waters off Puerto Rico);.
10. State ex rel. Cox v. Davidson Indus. Inc., 635 P.2d 630 (Or. 1981) (refusing to order removal of fill placed in public waters without a permit).
11. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (holding that Endangered Species Act precludes any defense of undue hardship);.
12. Jared A. Goldstein, Equitable Balancing in the Age of Statutes, 96 VA. L. REV. 485 (2010) (arguing against equitable balancing in statutory cases);.
13. Zygmunt J.B. Plater, Statutory Violations and Equitable Discretion, 70 CAL. L. REV. 524 (1982) (same).
14. New Leaf, LLC v. FD Dev., LLC, 793 N.W.2d 32, 36 (S.D. 2010).
15. Proctor v. Huntington, 238 P.3d 1117, 1121-22 (Wash. 2010).
16. Amko, Ltd. v. Welborn, 21 P.3d 24, 27, 29 (N.M. 2001).
17. Spur Indus., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 494 P.2d 700, 706 (Ariz. 1972).
18. DAN B. DOBBS, LAW OF REMEDIES: DAMAGES-EQUITY-RESTITUTION §§2.4(5), 5.7(2), at 108-13, 765-71 (2d ed. 1993) (emphasizing the broad range of relevant factors and the centrality of balancing with respect to both hardships and equities).
19. Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc., 676 P.2d 584, 590 (Cal. 1984);.
20. Mid- America Pipeline Co. v. Wietharn, 787 P.2d 716 (Kan. 1990);.
21. Swaggerty v. Petersen, 572 P.2d 1309, 1315-16 (Or. 1977);.
22. Renaissance Development Corp. v. Universal Properties Group, Inc., 821 A.2d 233, 238-39 (R.I. 2003);.
23. Papanikolas Bros. Enters. v. Sugarhouse Shopping Center Assocs., 535 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1975) (all refusing to balance equities where encroachment was intentional).
24. Ridgway v. TTnT Dev. Corp., 26 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
25. Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates, 985 P.2d 1045 (Haw. 1999) (ordering removal of tennis court but refusing to order removal of roadway);.
26. Urban Site Venture II Ltd. P'ship v. Levering Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 665 A.2d 1062 (Md. 1995) (refusing to order removal of encroaching parking garage);.
27. Gaffny v. Reid, 628 A.2d 155, 157-58 (Me. 1993) (refusing to order removal of encroaching cottage);.
28. Kratzke v. Indep. Order of Odd-fellows, 500 N.W.2d 115 (Mich. 1993) (refusing to order removal of encroaching corner of building);.
29. Slocum v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 678 P.2d 716, 719-20 (Okla. 1983) (refusing to order removal of pipeline built across plaintiff's property without authority).
30. City of Harrisonville v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 289 U.S. 334 (1933) (refusing to enjoin discharge of partially treated sewage);.
31. Baldwin v. McClendon, 288 So. 2d 761, 766-67 (Ala. 1974) (enjoining operation of hog farm but suspending injunction on condition that defendant pay $3, 000 in damages);.
32. Merrick v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 649 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983) (refusing to enjoin heliport determined to be nuisance).
33. DOUGLAS LAYCOCK, THE DEATH OF THE IRREPARABLE INJURY RULE 161-62 (1991).
34. Heyniger v. Levinsohn, 101 A. 189 (N.J. Ch. 1917) ("The defendant proceeded at his peril, in an apparent disregard of all other's rights.
35. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 873 (N.Y. 1970).
36. DOUGLAS LAYCOCK, MODERN AMERICAN REMEDIES: CASES AND MATERIALS 405-06 (4th ed. 2010).
37. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Vesey, 200 N.E. 620, 625-26 (Ind. 1936) (refusing to enjoin gas plant representing $3, 000, 000 investment that had destroyed greenhouse business representing $200, 000 investment);.
38. Ky.-Ohio Gas Co. v. Bowling, 95 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Ky. 1936) (awarding damages for operation of gas plant that rendered nearby house uninhabitable, and noting that injunction would be precluded by the public interest in the gas plant);.
39. City of Amarillo v. Ware, 40 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tex. 1931) (awarding permanent damages for operation of storm sewer that flooded plaintiff's land, and assuming that injunction would be improper).
40. Ferguson v. Village of Hamburg, 5 N.E.2d 801 (N.Y. 1936) (refusing to order destruction of dam that deprived riparian owners of water, lest plaintiffs acquire undue bargaining power; awarding damages instead);.
41. Cox v. City of N.Y., 193 N.E. 251 (N.Y. 1934) (refusing to order railroad to rebuild bridges over which plaintiffs had an easement; awarding damages instead);.
42. Westphal v. City of N.Y., 69 N.E. 369 (N.Y. 1904) (refusing to enjoin operation of municipal wells and pumping stations that had dried up plaintiffs' water supply);.
43. Pappenheim v. Metropolitan Elevated Ry. Co., 28 N.E. 518 (N.Y. 1891) (explaining legal and equitable remedies for building of railroad adjacent to plaintiff's property, and that injunction should be conditioned on railroad's refusal to pay damages).
44. The court also cited for the same point Van Allen v. N.Y. Elevated R.R., 38 N.E. 997 (N.Y. 1894), .
45. Lynch v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 29 N.E. 315 (N.Y. 1891).
46. Journal of Tort Law, Vol. 4 [2012], Iss. 3, Art. 3.
47. O'Reilly v. N.Y. Elevated R.R., 42 N.E. 1063, 1065 (N.Y. 1896) ("The proceedings by which the court ascertains and fixes the damages done to the abutting property in the deprivation of easements are, in fact, but a substitute for condemnation proceedings.").
48. citing Henderson v. N.Y. Cent. R.R., 78 N.Y. 423 (1879).
49. Knoth v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 79 N.E. 1015, 1018 (N.Y. 1907.
50. Forstmann v. Joray Holding Co., 154 N.E. 652 (N.Y. 1926) (refusing to enforce restrictive covenant where benefit to plaintiff would be slight to none and cost of compliance to defendant would be great);.
51. McCann v. Chasm Power Co., 105 N.E. 416 (N.Y. 1914) (refusing to order removal of hydroelectric dam that violated riparian rights of upstream owner, where land affected was narrow chasm of no commercial value).
52. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 287 N.Y.S.2d 112, 114 (Sup. Ct. 1967), aff'd, 294 N.Y.S.2d 452 (App. Div. 1968), rev'd, 257 N.E.2d 870 (N.Y. 1970).
53. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 294 N.Y.S.2d 452, 453 (App. Div. 1968), .
54. Louise A. Halper, Nuisance, Courts and Markets in the New York Court of Appeals, 1850-1915, 54 ALB. L. REV. 301 (1990).
55. Squaw Island Freight Terminal Co. v. City of Buffalo, 7 N.E.2d 10, 14 (N.Y. 1937) (holding that nuisance from discharge of sewage should not be enjoined unless the city could comply without shutting down the outlet from its sewer system);.
56. O'Reilly v. N.Y. Elevated R.R., 42 N.E. 1063 (N.Y. 1896)
57. Gray v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 28 N.E. 498, 509 (N.Y. 1891) (injunction vacated because of errors in determination of damages to be paid in lieu of complying with the injunction;.
58. Slobodkina v. Village of Great Neck, 138 N.Y.S.2d 28, 30 (App. Div. 1955) (holding that nuisance from sewage treatment plant should not be enjoined unless it could be abated "without undue hardship to defendant");.
59. Haber v. Paramount Ice Co., 267 N.Y.S. 349, 353-54 (App. Div. 1933) (refusing to enjoin night-time operation of ice manufacturing plant), .
60. Raymond v. Transit Dev. Co., 119 N.Y.S. 655 (App. Div. 1909) (upholding pleading of importance of defendant's business as "partial defense, " meaning a defense to plea for an injunction but not a defense to plea for damages);.
61. Riedeman v. Mt. Morris Elec. Light Co., 67 N.Y.S. 391, 394 (App. Div. 1900) (refusing to enjoin operation of power plant);.
62. Kraatz v. Certain- Teed Prods. Corp., 20 N.Y.S.2d 13 (Sup. Ct. 1940) (refusing to enjoin operation of gypsum mill);.
63. Garber v. Rubel Corp., 290 N.Y.S. 633, 634 (Sup. Ct. 1936) (refusing to enjoin operation of ice plant);.
64. Thompson v. Ft. Miller Pulp & Paper Co., 181 N.Y.S. 714, 719-20 (Sup. Ct. 1920) (refusing to order removal of dam necessary to substantial paper mill);.
65. Corcoran v. N.Y. Cent. R.R., 165 N.Y.S. 341, 347-48 (Sup. Ct. 1917) (refusing to enjoin operation of railroad roundhouse on condition that defendant pay permanent damages), .
66. Sammons v. City of Gloversville, 67 N.E. 622 (N.Y. 1903) (staying injunction against discharge of sewage into stream so that city would have time to either correct the problem, buy the right to pollute, or obtain legislative authorization to continue the discharges);.
67. Garvey v. Long Island R.R.Co., 54 N.E. 57 (N.Y. 1899) (staying injunction for three months so that defendant could acquire plaintiff's property);.
68. Story v. N.Y. Elevated R.R., 90 N.Y. 122, 179 (1882) (delaying issuance of injunction until defendant could acquire plaintiff's property by purchase or condemnation).
69. Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co., 58 N.E. 142, 148 (N.Y. 1900) (remanding for an injunction ordering defendant to take mitigating measures;.
70. Barrick v. Schifferdecker, 25 N.E. 365 (N.Y. 1890) (stating in dictum that private defendant would have had option to abate the nuisance or pay permanent damages).
71. Canfield v. Quayle, 10 N.Y.S.2d 781, 793 (Sup. Ct. 1939) (refusing to enjoin bowling alley that created a noise problem, in part because of defendant's investment and continuing liability on a lease).
72. Bentley v. Empire Portland Cement Co., 96 N.Y.S. 831, 834-35 (Sup. Ct. 1905).
73. Corley v. Spitzer, 255 N.Y.S. 601 (App. Div. 1932) (remanding with suggestion that remedy for good-faith encroachment be permanent damages rather than injunction);.
74. Crocker v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.S. 492 (App. Div. 1901) (refusing to order removal of encroaching wall of office tower, on ground of undue hardship, but ordering removal of shutters that encroached when opened);.
75. Jacobus v. Willis, 134 N.Y.S. 455, 456 (Sup. Ct. 1911) ("A court of equity may take possession and finally end such a controversy by securing the payment of adequate compensation in lieu of a cessation of the trespass.");.
76. Goldbacher v. Eggers, 76 N.Y.S. 881 (Sup. Ct. 1902) (refusing to order removal of encroaching wall), .
77. Batchelor v. Hinkle, 104 N.E. 629 (N.Y. 1914) (refusing enforcement on ground of hardship to defendant and lack of benefit to plaintiff);.
78. McClure v. Leaycraft, 75 N.E. 961 (N.Y. 1905) (same);.
79. Amerman v. Deane, 30 N.E. 741, 741 (N.Y. 1892) (same; "If enjoined . . . defendant must necessarily suffer damage greatly in excess of any which is likely or possible to be sustained by the plaintiff.");.
80. Trustees of Columbia College v. Thacher, 87 N.Y. 311 (1881) (same);.
81. Mandel v. Oremland, 254 N.Y.S.2d 51, 52 (App. Div. 1964) (refusing to order removal of prohibited garage where prohibition would soon expire);.
82. Syracuse Supply Co. v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 258 N.Y.S.2d 477, 480-82 (Sup. Ct. 1965) (refusing to enforce setback line where defendant built over it by mistake, harm to plaintiff was slight, and correction would require tearing down much of defendant's building);.
83. Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Sahlem, 172 N.E. 455, 457 (N.Y. 1930) (Cardozo, J.) (noting the cases refusing relief but concluding that "Here, in the case at hand, no process of balancing the equities can make the plaintiff's the greater when compared with the defendant's, or even place the two in equipoise.").
84. Kleinberg v. Ratett, 169 N.E. 289, 290 (N.Y. 1929) (refusing specific performance of contract to buy realty, where newly revealed underground stream would cause great hardship to buyer);.
85. Conger v. N.Y., W. Shore & Buffalo R.R. Co., 23 N.E. 983 (N.Y. 1890) (refusing to specifically enforce contract to build a train station and stop trains in a remote location, balancing limited benefit to plaintiff against cost to railroad and inconvenience to public);.
86. Murtfeldt v. N.Y., W. Shore & Buffalo Ry. Co., 7 N.E. 404 (N.Y. 1886) (refusing to specifically enforce a contract to build an underpass, where changes in grade had made the underpass difficult to build and of little value when built);.
87. Warren v. Hoch, 96 N.Y.S.2d 832, 835 (App. Div. 1950) ("The rule is that, where there is great hardship on defendant in an action for specific performance, without any considerable gain to plaintiff, the court, in the exercise of its equitable powers, may refuse specific performance.");.
88. Bourianoff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.S.2d 50 (Sup. Ct. 1941) (refusing to specifically enforce contract to install telephone service where performance would trigger strike that would shut down defendant's large project elsewhere).
89. Lexington & Fortieth Corp. v. Callaghan, 24 N.E.2d 316, 317-18 (N.Y. 1939) (refusing to order restoration of a building modified in violation of a lease;.
90. Miles v. Dover Furnace Iron Co., 26 N.E. 261 (N.Y. 1891) (refusing specific performance of a lease of a mine when it developed that the mine could not be profitably worked without causing higher levels to collapse).
91. Clarke v. Rochester, Lockport, & Niagara Falls R.R., 18 Barb. 350 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1854) (refusing to specifically enforce statutory duty to build farm crossing over or under railroad, where cost would be great and benefit small).
92. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 872 (N.Y. 1970).
93. Campbell v. Seaman, 63 N.Y. 568, 586 (1876) ("Where the damage to one complaining of a nuisance is small or trifling, and the damage to the one causing the nuisance will be large in case he be restrained, the courts will sometimes deny an injunction. But such is not this case . . . . It does not appear that defendant's damage from an abatement of the nuisance will be as great as plaintiffs' damages from its continuance.").
94. McCarty v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 81 N.E. 549, 549-50 (N.Y. 1907) (enjoining use of soft coal where defendant could eliminate any nuisance by burning anthracite coal);.
95. Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co., 58 N.E. 142, 148 (N.Y. 1900) (remanding for new trial and suggesting ways in which defendant might abate the nuisance without shutting down its works).
96. Daniel A. Farber, The Story of Boomer: Pollution and the Common Law, 32 ECOLOGY L.Q. 113, 124-26 (2005).
97. Ferguson v. Village of Hamburg, 5 N.E.2d 801, 803 (N.Y. 1936) (collecting cases for the proposition that "a court of equity could ascertain the damages and grant an injunction which was not to be effective unless the defendant failed to pay the amount fixed as damages for the past and permanent injury inflicted").
98. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator, available at http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation-calculator.htm.
99. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 872, 874 (N.Y. 1970).
100. Whalen v. Union Paper Bag Co., 129 N.Y.S. 391, 393 (App. Div. 1911) (Betts., J., dissenting).
101. Barrick v. Schifferdecker, 25 N.E. 365, 365 (N.Y. 1890).
102. Haber v. Paramount Ice Co., 267 N.Y.S. 349, 353 (App. Div. 1933), .
103. Haber v. Paramount Ice Corp., 190 N.E. 163 (N.Y. 1934).
104. Kraatz v. Certain-Teed Prods. Corp., 20 N.Y.S.2d 13, 18 (Sup. Ct. 1940).
105. quoting Riedeman v. Mt. Morris Elec. Light Co., 67 N.Y.S. 391, 394 (App. Div. 1900)).
106. Westphal v. City of N.Y., 69 N.E. 369, 369 (N.Y. 1904) (noting the option of commissioners);.
107. Van Allen v. N.Y, Elevated R.R., 38 N.E. 997, 997-98 (N.Y. 1894) (upholding power to assesspast damages in equity even after plaintiff had sold his property and thus forfeited any claim to an injunction);.
108. Lynch v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 29 N.E. 315, 315-19 (N.Y. 1891) (upholding power to assess past damages in equity).
109. A. Leo Levin, Equitable Clean-Up and the Jury: A Suggested Orientation, 100 U. PA. L. REV. 320 (1951).
110. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 294 N.Y.S.2d 452, 453 (App. Div. 1968) (balancing hardships and treating that as uncontroversially the law of New York), .
111. McKinley v. Atlantic Cement Co., 349 N.Y.S.2d 199, 200 (App. Div. 1973).
112. JAMES M. FISCHER, UNDERSTANDING REMEDIES §33.2 at 299-302 (2d ed. 2006);.
113. W. Page Keeton & Clarence Morris, Notes on "Balancing the Equities, " 18 TEX. L. REV. 412 (1940);.
114. David Schoenbrod, The Immortality of Equitable Balancing, 96 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 17 (2010);.
115. David S. Schoenbrod, The Measure of an Injunction: A Principle to Replace Balancing the Equities and Tailoring the Remedy, 72 MINN. L. REV. 627, 636-70 (1988).
116. citing City of Harrisonville v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 289 U.S. 334 (1933), .
117. Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper, & Iron Co., 83 S.W. 658 (Tenn. 1904).
118. Robert C. Ellickson, Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls, 40 U. CHI. L. REV. 681, 747 n.229 (1973) (speculating that equitable defenses may create uncertainties that impede bargaining);.
119. A. Mitchell Polinsky, Resolving Nuisance Disputes: The Simple Economics of Injunctive and Damage Remedies, 32 STAN. L. REV. 1075, 1079 n.10 (1980) (noting the doctrine's existence).
120. RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW §3.10 at 72 (7th ed. 2007).
121. Richard A. Epstein, A Clear View of the Cathedral: The Dominance of Property Rules, 106 YALE L.J. 2091, 2101-02 (1997).
122. THOMAS W. MERRILL & HENRY E. SMITH, PROPERTY: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 50-56 (2007).
123. Thomas W. Merrill, Golden Rules for Transboundary Pollution, 46 DUKE L.J. 931, 943-44, 1001 (1997).
124. Henry E. Smith, Institutions and Indirectness in Intellectual Property, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 2083, 2125-32 (2009).
125. Henry E. Smith, Exclusion and Property Rules in the Law of Nuisance, 90 VA. L. REV. 965, 1038-44 (2004).
126. Henry E. Smith, An Economic Analysis of Law Versus Equity (Oct. 22, 2010) (unpublished manuscript on file with author).
127. George P. Smith, II, Nuisance Law: The Morphogenesis of an Historical Revisionist Theory of Contemporary Economic Jurisprudence, 74 NEB. L. REV. 658 (1995).
128. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (2010);.
129. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
130. Prairie Hills Water & Dev. Co. v. Gross, 653 N.W.2d 745, 754-55 (S.D. 2002) (enjoining operation of sandblasting business).
131. West Town Plaza Assocs., Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 So.2d 1290, 1296-98 (Ala. 1993) (ordering removal of an encroaching building);.
132. Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Services, Inc., 426 N.E.2d 824, 837-41 (Ill. 1981) (enjoining operation of chemical waste-disposal site);.
133. Eaton v. Cormier, 748 A.2d 1006, 1008 (Me. 2000) (restricting operation of a quarry);.
134. Hot Rod Hill Motor Park v. Triolo, 276 S.W.3d 565, 567-76 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008) (enjoining operation of race track and drag strip).
135. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (enjoining completion of nearly completed dam to save a small endangered fish, the snail darter).
136. Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Whiffen, 773 P.2d 1294, 1297-1302 (Or. 1989) (balancing the equities as grounds for refusing to enjoin trespass by persons circulating petitions in plaintiff's shopping mall).
137. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870, 873 n.* (N.Y. 1970).
138. Stanford Hotels Corp. v. Potomac Creek Assocs., L.P., 18 A.3d 725, 737 (D.C. 2011).
139. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971) (ordering school busing to desegregate metropolitan school district);.
140. Morgan v. McDonough, 540 F.2d 527, 535 (1st Cir. 1976) (affirming an order to repair the toilet stalls in South Boston High School-one of many litigated details in the effort to desegregate the Boston schools).
141. Brown v. Plata, 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011) (affirming injunction to greatly reduce population of California's prisons, after sixteen years of unsuccessful efforts to improve medical care for prisoners by ordering various reforms).
142. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 2007 WL 461471 (D. Idaho 2007) (finding state officials in contempt of court with respect to 21 action items in consent decree designed to eliminate unconstitutional conditions in home for emotionally disturbed children).
143. Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986), a dispute over attorneys' fees.
144. Stewart E. Sterk, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Uncertainty About Property, 106 MICH. L. REV. 1285 (2008) (reviewing this literature).
145. Jason Scott Johnston, Bargaining Under Rules Versus Standards, 11 J.L. ECON. & ORG. 256 (1995);.
146. Ian Ayres & Eric Talley, Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade, 104 YALE L.J. 1027 (1995).
147. Steven A. Shavell, Specific Performance Versus Damages for Breach of Contract: An Economic Analysis, 84 TEX. L. REV. 831, 841-46 (2006) (arguing against specific performance of contracts to produce something, because performance might turn out to be unexpectedly expensive).
148. Ian Austen, A Patent Dispute Threatens to Cut Executives Off, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 2, 2005, at C2.
149. MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 275 F. Supp. 2d 695, 701-02 (E.D. Va. 2003), .
150. MercExchange, 275 F. Supp. 2d at 708 & n.12.
151. Mark P. Gergen, John M. Golden, & Henry E. Smith, The Supreme Court's Accidental Revolution? The Test for Permanent Injunctions, 112 COLUM. L. REV. - (forthcoming 2012);.
152. Doug Rendleman, The Trial Judge's Equitable Discretion Following eBay v. MercExchange, 27 REV. LITIG. 63 (2007).
153. Christopher Phelps & Assocs., LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 544-46 (4th Cir. 2007).
154. Benjamin Petersen, Note, Injunctive Relief in the PosteBay World, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 193 (2008).
155. Mark A. Lemley, Ignoring Patents, 2008 MICH. ST. L. REV. 19, 22 (2008) (discussing how many researchers "don't conduct a search for prior patents before seeking their own protection . . . . Nor do they conduct a search before launching their own product.").
156. Ward Farnsworth, Do Parties to Nuisance Cases Bargain After Judgment? A Glimpse Inside the Cathedral, 66 U. CHI L. REV. 373 (1999).
157. JESSE DUKEMINIER, JAMES E. KRIER, GREGORY S. ALEXANDER, & MICHAEL H. SCHILL, PROPERTY 134 (6th ed., Aspen 2006).
158. describing Mannillo v. Gorski, 255 A.2d 258 (N.J. 1969).
159. Kinley v. Atlantic Cement Co., 349 N.Y.S.2d 199 (App. Div. 1973).