Equitable Relief: An Overview

In determining whether a litigant's claims sounded in law or equity, and thus whether the litigant is entitled to a jury trial, using a historical test is challenging for three primary reasons. First, there has been a substantial increase in the volume of claims in which plaintiffs seek both legal and equitable remedies. Second, over the past two centuries, we have developed claims and remedies that have no clear analogs to forms of action known in the late 18^th century. Third, given the significant growth in the size of the administrative state during the 20^th century, the number of claims resolved by administrative tribunals, as opposed to courts, has increased dramatically.

Regarding the first point, 18^th century courts did contemplate cases involving both legal and equitable relief. Under the “clean-up” doctrine, courts of equity were empowered to resolve legal claims linked to equitable suits. This policy helped reduce the time and expense inherent in litigation for plaintiffs who otherwise would have needed to navigate two independent court systems with distinct rules. However, by taking advantage of the “clean-up” doctrine, plaintiffs had to cede the right to trial by jury for any legal claims resolved by a court of equity.

In the modern era, the primary (not the only, but the primary) distinction between law and equity concerns the relief that each system made available.  Most of the time, remedies at law consisted of compensatory or punitive damages.  There were exceptions, however.  A plaintiff who wanted to remove an occupant from the plaintiff's real estate sued in the courts of law in an action called ejectment, and if the plaintiff won the case, the court of law issued an order for the defendant to get off the land. Such an order looked a lot like an injunction (see below).

Remedies available from equity included an injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and restitution.  An injunction is an order to a party to do or to cease to do something.  It looks nothing like damages, the classic remedy of the law system.  But disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and restitution involve the transfer of money from the defendant to the plaintiff.  That looks a lot like damages. Typically, the suit for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains or for restitution was for some specific monetary amount that the defendant wrongfully obtained; theoretically, the money was not to "compensate," but to restore to the plaintiff what was rightfully theirs.  But again, this is a paper-thin distinction.

Further information on certain equitable remedies appears below.