INTRODUCTION
The procedural distinction between law and equity in the United States is largely a historical footnote in the present day. David Dudley Field, the notorious lawyer who advocated for the end to the distinction between law and equity, believed that there was no true substantive difference between the two disciplines beyond the different remedies that each could offer. But equity has not gone gentle into that good night. For example, federal courts have recently struggled with the scope of injunctive relief, a traditional equitable remedy. At present, the law grants to United States courts that hear cases in equity only the authority of ‘the English Court of Chancery at the time of the separation of the two countries [ie, England and the United States]’. Further, the law dictates that equitable remedies must be granted according to ‘traditional principles of equity jurisdiction’. Regardless of whether Field’s view that equity and law are functionally no different is correct, the principles behind the ancient system of equity still govern federal law today. Equity has been a controversial area of the law for ages …
Brooks M Chupp, ‘A Sword in the Bed’: Bringing an End to the Fusion of Law and Equity, 98 Notre Dame Law Review 465 (3 November 2022).
Leave a Reply