her privileges and mailed the report required under § 11133. “The purpose of an injunction is the restraint of actions which have not yet been taken. Remedy by injunction is generally preventative, prohibitory, or protective, and equity will not usually issue an injunction when the act complained of has been committed and the injury has been done.” Koenig v. Southeast Community College, 231 Neb. 923, 925, 438 N.W.2d 791, 794 (1989). Because the reporting to the National Practitioner Data Bank was already a fait accompli when Babcock requested the injunction, she was not entitled to this form of relief, and the district court correctly granted summary judgment on her requests for injunctive relief. See Bamford v. Upper Republican Nat. Resources Dist., 245 Neb. 299, 512 N.W.2d 642 (1994) (<HOLDING>). However, this is not to say that if Babcock’s
holding that the fifth circuit does not recognize an innocent borrower exception to the doench doctrine recognizing the public interest exception holding that natural resources district order against farmers in fifth year of water allocation was moot by passage of time when fifth year was already over but recognizing public interest exception to mootness doctrine citing koenig v southeast community college supra recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege