Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 137 N.W.2d 314.

235 citing documents.

City of Blaine Police Department v. John Mark Luedtke Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The district court’s April 13, 2026 order is not styled as an injunction, - 22 (Minn. 1965), including respondent’s likelihood of success on the merits.
Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A25-1517 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In June 2024, the Arizona franchisees sent written notices to Ellie alleging that Ellie breached their franchise agreements and demanded that 1
A25-1473 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Dahlberg Bros., , 321 (Minn. 1965).
In the Matter of the Trust Created Under Agreement by and Between Janet E. Johnson, Settlor, and Paul … Minn. 2025
In the Matter of the Trust Created Under Agreement by and Between Janet E. Johnson, Settlor, and Paul … Minn. 2025
Dahlberg Bros., –22 (Minn. 1965).
City of Long Lake, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 286-87 (quoting Dahlberg Bros., -22 (Minn. 1965)); see also First & First, LLC v. Chadco , LLC, -58 (Minn. App. 2023), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Lorenzo Tejeda, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
For example, “the facts on which [a] trial court acts in granting a temporary injunction are, by the nature of the situation, provisional.” Dahlberg Bros., see also Whitaker v. 3M Co., (stating that “factual findings at the class-certification stage are not binding on the ultimate trier of fact”), rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
3.001-.01 (2024) (Commercial Assumed Names Law), which prohibits people from conducting a commercial business under an assumed name without filing a certificate; Minn. Stat. § 325F.662 (2024) (Used Car Law), which is a provision of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA), Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68-.945 (2024), that addresses the sale of used motor vehicles; -22 (Minn. 1965).
Larry Koch, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Simultaneously, Koch moved for a TRO to enjoin t he land acquisition by arguing that respondents threatened him with irreparable injury and by invoking the five factors under Dahlberg Bros., .
Minnesota Duty Disabled Association (MNDDA), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court held a hearing on MNDDA’s motion in November 2023, at which both parties presented arguments related to the factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros., Inc, v. Ford Motor Co., - 22 (Minn. 1965), for evaluating the propriety of a temporary injunction.
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
at 286-87 (quoting Dahlberg Bros., -22 (Minn. 1965)).
Tanya Mae Wagner, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Dahlberg Brothers, -22 (Minn. 1965).
Laurie J. Stangel, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, by Dr. Brooke Cunningham, Commissioner of Health in her official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
26, 1992) ; Dahlberg Bros., d 314, 321-22 (Minn. 1965) (articulating five factors to be considered by a district court when determining whether a temporary injunction is appropriat e).
Jeffrey D. Kuhn, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(holding that likelihood of success on the merits is one of five factors relevant to issuance of a temporary injunction).
All-American Ice L.L.C., d/b/a All-American Arena Products, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Douglas J. Malark, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The Estate of Michael T. Conneran, Jr., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Further, “the facts on which the trial court acts in granting a temporary injunction are, by the nature of the situation, provisional,” and injunctive relief “will continue only until a more scientific analysis of the problem is made possible by trial on the merits.” Dahlberg Brothers
Teamsters Local 320, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In addition, the court specifically considered the factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co. , which are applicable to TRO/ temporary-injunction motions brought under rules 65.01 and 65.02.
Peter Gerard Lonergan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Dahlberg Bros., –22 (Minn. 1965) (providing the five-factor test).
State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health in her official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , -22 (Minn. 1965); DSCC v. Simon , -87 (Minn. 2020).
Pilot Air Freight, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Dahlberg Brothers, -22 (Minn. 1965).
In the Matter of the Otto Bremer Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co. , -22 (Minn. 1965).
A20-0744 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See generally Dahlberg Bros.
St. Cloud Educational Rights Advocacy Council, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State, Minn. 2020
Nick Kossick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , -22 (Minn. 1965).
Nancy Leppink, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Before granting a temporary inj unction, a district court must consider the factors articulated by the supreme court in Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , -22 (Minn. 1965).
A19-0507 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4.3-721 (2018), allows a district court, upon a proper motion, to review the reasonableness of compensation received by a specialized a gent employed by the estate, to order appropriate refun ds if the compensation received is determined t o be excessive, and to fashion interim injunctive relief if warranted after analysis of the factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros.
Rodrigo Esparza, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Dahlberg Bros., -22 (Minn. 1965).
Lance Gerald Milliman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , -22 (Minn. 1965).
Shari Monica Kristo, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sports Facilities Comm’n v. Minn. Twins P’ship , d 214, 220–21 (Minn. App. 2002) (citing Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co. , d 314, 321–22 (Minn. 1965)), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Medtronic, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court determined that four of the factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , —relationship of the parties, balance of harms, likelihood of success on the mer its, and public policy— weighed in favor of granting Medtronic’s motion.
EMERGE Community Development, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dahlberg Bros., - 22 (Minn. 1965).
Heritage Bank, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Those factors are: the nature of the parties; the balance of relative harm suffered by each party; the likelihood of success on the merits; considerations of public policy; and “[t]he administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision and enforcement of the temporary decree.” Dahlberg Bros. Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , –22 ( Minn. 1965).
Nancy S. Schneider, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Irv’s Boomin’ Fireworks, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, -22 (1965).
AutoUpLink Technologies, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 See Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co. , 27 2 Minn. 264, 274 -75, -22 (1965) (setting forth the five factors to be considered for granting temporary injunctions).
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, -22 (1965).
State v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 2017
State v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 2017
See Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264 , -22 (1965) (stating the factors to consider for- a temporary injunction).
Kristina Greene, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
7 Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co. , 272 Minn. 264, 274 -75, -22 (1965).
Eric D. Humphreys, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, -22 4 (1965) (identifying five factors).
In re the Matter of: Jessica Leah Weiss, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Griffin argues that he received insufficient notice of the ex parte motion seeking to restrain him from using or transferring the funds received from his father’s estate and that the district court granted the motion in violation of the factors provided by Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, , for determining whether to grant a temporary restraining order.4 The district court did not cite Griffin’s expenditure of the funds in violation of the order as a basis for imposing the
The Valspar Corporation, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Softchoice, (citing Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, -22 (1965)).
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 890 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2017
Anita J. Howard v. Shelly R. Svoboda, M.D. 890 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2017
See Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., *115 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (setting forth the factors for a temporary injunction); 1 Howard C. Joyce, A Treatise on the Law Relating to Injunctions, § 1, at 2-3 (1909) (“[I]n its accepted legal sense, an injunction is a judicial process ...