Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 110 N.W.2d 348.

72 citing documents.

Minnesota Duty Disabled Association (MNDDA), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm .” (quoting Sampson, 415 U.S. at 90) ); AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc.
State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... 7 N.W.3d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation v. City of ... 7 N.W.3d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., see also Wadena, d at 389 (explaining that “where injunctive relief is explicitly authorized by statute .
First & First, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Chadco of Duluth, LLC, a Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
First & First, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Chadco of Duluth, LLC, a Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., (“The burden of proof rests upon the complainant to establish the material allegations entitling him to relief.”).
Medtronic, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc.
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
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc. , , 92 (Minn. 1979) (citations omitted); see also AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc. , 260 Minn. 499 , , 351 (1961) ("Injunctive relief should be awarded only in clear cases, reasonably free from doubt, and when necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury....
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The threatened injury must be real and substantial.” AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua 875 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2016
court’s- decision, following trial, to grant specific performance of a contract); AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504 , (reviewing the grant of a temporary injunction under an abuse of discretion standard).
Advance Contract Equipment and Design LC, d/b/a, Rapids Foodservice Contract and Design v. Kevin LaMere, Horizon Equipment LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Advance Contract Equipment and Design LC, d/b/a, Rapids Foodservice Contract and Design v. Kevin LaMere, Horizon Equipment LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The threatened injury must be real and substantial.” -12 (Minn. App. 1984) (quoting AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504, ).
Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 642 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 642 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Angeion Corp. 615 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Angeion Corp. 615 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Humenansky v. Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners 525 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504 , (party seeking relief has heavy burden of proof regarding need for relief); (the moving party’s failure to demonstrate irreparable harm is reason to deny injunctive relief), pet.
State v. Gartenberg 488 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Gartenberg 488 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Cheme Industrial Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. v. Loft Homes, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. v. Loft Homes, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
257 , 15 L.Ed.2d 192 (U.S.1966) (Mem.); AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499 , and Williams v. Rolfe, 257 Minn. 237 , to argue that equitable relief should be denied when, as here, there is an adequate legal remedy.
State ex rel. Cooper v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State ex rel. Cooper v. Sports & Health Club, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504 , (citing General Minnesota Utilities Co. v. Carlton County Cooperative Power Association, 221 Minn. 510 , ).
Oxford Development Minnesota, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 428 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Oxford Development Minnesota, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 428 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. v. Microfresh Foods Corp. 424 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. v. Microfresh Foods Corp. 424 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499 , see generally Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264
Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust 423 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust 423 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 507
Allstate Sales & Leasing Co. v. Geis 412 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Allstate Sales & Leasing Co. v. Geis 412 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
Central Lakes Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 743 411 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Central Lakes Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 743 411 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
Alexander v. Severson 408 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Alexander v. Severson 408 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Injunctive Relief A trial court may exercise its sound discretion in granting injunctive relief and “its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless, based upon the whole record, it appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion.” Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., (citing AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504 , ).
Bio-Line, Inc. v. Burman 404 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bio-Line, Inc. v. Burman 404 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
AMF Pinspotters Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 507
Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Itasca Co. 403 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Itasca Co. 403 N.W.2d 310 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Compare Hideaway, Inc. v. Gambit Investments, Inc., (discussing the conditions that must be satisfied before a mandatory injunction will issue) with AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504 , -52 (1961) (discussing the same conditions for a preventive injunction).
Northwest Petroleum Ass'n v. Minnesota Department of Economic Security 402 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Northwest Petroleum Ass'n v. Minnesota Department of Economic Security 402 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
A trial court may exercise sound discretion in granting injunctive relief and “its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless, based upon the whole record, it appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion.” Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., (citing AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504 , ).
Hideaway, Inc. v. Gambit Investments, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hideaway, Inc. v. Gambit Investments, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504
Strangis v. Metropolitan Bank 385 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Strangis v. Metropolitan Bank 385 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Harkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 504