How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 118087
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

In Indiana are there precedents of plaintiffs winning not only

Customer Question

In Indiana are there precedents of plaintiffs winning not only monetary damages but also restraining orders concerning defamation of character ? Also, are there precedents for a group or class of plaintiffs filing together and winning their suits ? Thank you !
Submitted: 4 years ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 4 years ago.
Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking.

First, defamation is a personal tort, which means that is found on an individual basis not really a group basis, although there may be multiple plaintiffs in a suit. This means the court has to find defamation as to each of the plaintiffs.

Yes, the court can award both monetary relief and injunctive relief in a defamation suit and it is discretionary to the court based on whether or not the court finds the monetary relief would be a complete remedy to resolve the dispute. The Indiana Courts hold that although mere economic injury generally does not warrant the grant of a preliminary injunction, the trial court has a duty to determine whether the legal remedy is as full and adequate as the equitable remedy. Jay County Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Ass'n, Inc., 692 N.E.2d 905, 909 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. A legal remedy is not adequate merely because it exists as an alternative to an equitable from of relief. Porter Mem'l Hosp. v. Malak, 484 N.E.2d 54, 62 (Ind.Ct. App.1985), trans. denied. Instead, injunctive relief will be granted if it is more practicable, efficient, or adequate than that afforded by law. Id. A legal remedy is adequate only where it is as "plain, complete and adequate-or in other words, as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration—as the remedy in equity." McKain v. Rigsby, 250 Ind. 438, 237 N.E.2d 99, 103 (1968).

In order to obtain the preliminary injunction, plaintiff is required to show irreparable injury. Tilley v. Roberson, 725 N.E.2d 150, 154 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Although a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show irreparable injury, this requirement does not demand that the party point to specific losses. Norlund, 675 N.E.2d at 1149. If a party seeking equitable relief could point to a specific dollar amount of losses, then a remedy at law would be sufficient. See id. However, if the Plaintiff can show that the monetary award is not sufficient to make them whole, the injunctive relief can be awarded as well.


I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.

Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.