the railroads, not whether the overcharged passengers had a right to compensation. The primary teaching of Arkadelphia, then, is that a trial court has discretion "consistent with the principles of equity" to use an injunction bond to do justice between the parties. Id. at 145. The case can in no way be read to stand for the proposition that every dissolution of an injunction gives rise to a right to damages.
Even as a precedent for the proper exercise of equitable discretion, Arkadelphia is inapposite. The remedy ordered in Arkadelphia was part of the injunction itself. The trial court was willing to exercise its equitable powers to enjoin the commission's rates only on condition that passengers be guaranteed against overcharging. This Court imposed no such conditions on its injunction in this case. In fact, in ordering preliminary relief for plaintiffs the Court explicitly addressed the possibility that plaintiffs would not prevail after a full trial. In that event, the Court stated, its eventual holding would "be a prospective decision." Bench Opinion at 757. The Court made it clear from the beginning that HIC would not be held responsible for additional Medicare expenses resulting from the Court's preliminary ruling. Unlike Arkadelphia, then, plaintiffs in this case relied on the preliminary injunction to provide services that they otherwise would not have provided. In contrast, the railroads in Arkadelphia were on notice from the outset that, if they chose during the period while the case was pending before the Supreme Court to charge rates in excess of the commission's limits, they might later be required to make compensatory payments. Another crucial difference is that the injunction in Arkadelphia, unlike the injunction in this case, was reversed on the merits. Arkadelphia, in short, is entirely distinguishable from the instant case, and nothing in it is contrary to this Court's decision to return the surety bond in this case to HIC.
Defendants' request for forfeiture will be denied. The preliminary injunction in this case was not erroneously granted. It was vacated because Congress changed the statute upon which the injunction rested. Even if the injunction is assumed to have been erroneously granted, it is this Court's finding that in balancing the equitable factors plaintiffs' position must prevail.
An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
ORDER - January 17, 1991, Filed
Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, defendants' renewed motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, the oppositions to these motions, the arguments of counsel, and the entire record in this case, it is this 17th day of January 1991 hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs' complaint is moot and shall be DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the bond posted by plaintiff Home Intensive Care, Inc., pursuant to this Court's order dated February 2, 1990, shall be discharged to plaintiff Home Intensive Care, Inc., along with all accumulated interest.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.