§ 5.3 Law Versus Equity

• Library: Oregon Civil Pleading and Litigation (OSBar) (2020 Ed.)

§ 5.3 LAW VERSUS EQUITY

The law currently distinguishes substantively between legal remedies and equitable remedies. Carey v. Hays, 243 Or 73, 77, 409 P2d 899 (1966); State v. Norris, 182 Or App 547, 552, 50 P3d 595 (2002). A legal remedy would be, for example, monetary damages. An equitable remedy would be, for example, an injunction, reformation, or specific performance. This sometimes elusive distinction is important primarily because (1) legal remedies provide for a jury trial and equitable remedies generally do not; and (2) on appeal, findings in equity are reviewed freely, albeit with deference given to credibility, while findings at law stand if there is "any evidence" in support. It is a distinction that is a vestige of a series of more fundamental substantive and procedural distinctions between law and equity that have been gradually eroded in the interest of mental and economic efficiency.

A substantive distinction is one regarding the nature of the claim or remedy as framed by the rights, duties, privileges, and powers of the parties.

A procedural distinction is one regarding the means or process of having the rights and duties inherent in the claim or remedy identified and implemented.

This distinction in categories of remedies stems from an earlier substantive and procedural distinction between actions at law (initiated by a...