2001) (citation, alteration and quotations omitted); see Wild v. Brooks, 2004 VT 74, ¶ 10, 177 Vt. 171, 862 A.2d 225 (explaining that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy designed to deter injurious conduct and cannot be granted if the conduct has been discontinued). ¶ 7. Landowner Houston argues that the controversy is still live because the wells are an ongoing taking for which she is entitled to damages. Although landowner admits that damages were not explicitly requested at trial, she suggests that a request for damages was inherent in her original complaint. Landowner’s claim for a damage reward at this stage in the legal process does not create a live controversy that can avoid the mootness of the case. See Dorian v. Unin of Vt., 156 Vt. 114, 119, 589 A.2d 317, 320 (1991) (<HOLDING>). The first time landowner requested a damage
holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict holding that the plaintiffs request for nominal damages did not defeat mootness as it appeared that the request was made solely to obtain a ruling on a moot issue holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them holding that plaintiffs request that inquiry be made of the jury about its intent behind the verdict was not a request to poll the jury holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties