Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International Molders & Foundry Workers Union, 13 N.W.2d 32.

25 citing documents.

St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carter 913 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2018
St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carter 913 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2018
See *685 J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. Int'l Molders & Foundry Workers Union of N. Am., Local No. 132 , 216 Minn. 436 , , 35 (1944).
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc. 313 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1981
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc. 313 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1981
A trial court cannot enjoin what a party only assumes, Thompson v. Barnes, 294 Minn. 528, 534 , or fears will be a possible result, J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International Molders & Foundry Workers Union, Local No. 132, 216 Minn. 436
Thompson v. Barnes 200 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1972
Thompson v. Barnes 200 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1972
No. 35 v. Engelstad, supra; Schmidt v. Gould, 172 Minn. 179 , Williams v. Rolfe, 257 Minn. 237 , J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International M. & F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436 , Village of Blaine v. Independent School Dist.
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer 144 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1966
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer 144 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1966
While the Federation readily concedes that this court has the power to stay proceedings, it vigorously asserts that to do so would overrule precedent and deviate from established judicial policy as enunciated in J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International M. & F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436 , 13 N. W. (2d) 32 .
Independent School District No. 35 v. Engelstad 144 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1966
Independent School District No. 35 v. Engelstad 144 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1966
J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International M. & F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436 , 13 N. W. (2d) 32 .
Local 597 State Capitol Employees American Federation of State v. Quigley 130 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1964
Local 597 State Capitol Employees American Federation of State v. Quigley 130 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1964
3 J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International M. & F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436, 442 , 13 N. W. (2d) 32, 35 .
Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Ass'n 115 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1962
Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Ass'n 115 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1962
We have considered the Conciliator’s contention that under J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International M. & F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436 , 13 N. W. (2d) 32 , his decision was not a final order which may be corrected by a writ of prohibition.
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc. 110 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1961
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc. 110 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1961
J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International M. & F. Workers Union, 216 Minn. 436 , 13 N. W. (2d) 32 ; 9 Dunnell, Dig.
State Ex Rel. Turnbladh v. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY 107 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1960
Thomas v. Ramberg 60 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1953
Thomas v. Ramberg 60 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1953
11 J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International M. & F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436 , 13 N. W. (2d) 32 ; see, Nemo v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees’ Local No. 556, 227 Minn. 263 , 35 N. W. (2d) 337, 811 .
Otter Tail Power Co. v. Village of Wheaton 49 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1951
Otter Tail Power Co. v. Village of Wheaton 49 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 1951
To be entitled to an injunction, “plaintiff must bring itself within the well-established rule that the threatened injury must be real, substantial, and irreparable” (J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. International M. & F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436, 440 , 13 N. W. [2d] 32, 34); or, to state it another way: “It is a well settled rule that an injunction ought not to be granted, unless the injury is pressing and the delay dangerous, or * * * where the injury might be irreparable.” Goodrich v. Moore, 2 M
Nemo v. Local Joint Executive Board & Hotel & Restaurant Employees' Local No. 556 35 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1948
Nemo v. Local Joint Executive Board & Hotel & Restaurant Employees' Local No. 556 35 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1948
We held in J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. Int'l M. F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436 , , that an election for the purpose of determining bargaining representatives is not a final order and does not command the employer to do or refrain from doing anything.
Hotel & Restaurant Employees' Union, Local No. 556-C v. Tzakis 33 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1948
Hotel & Restaurant Employees' Union, Local No. 556-C v. Tzakis 33 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1948
* * * On an appeal from an order refusing an injunction pendente lite, the order must be taken as resolving against the appellant all questions of fact which the evidence leaves in doubt.” In J. F. Quest Foundry Co. v. Int’l M. & F. W. Union, 216 Minn. 436, 440 , 13 N. W. (2d) 32, 34 , an action for a temporary injunction, this court said: “* * * To be entitled to such extraordinary relief, plaintiff must bring itself within the well-established rule that the threatened injury must be real,

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by