Cited by

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

235 citing documents.

Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, -22 (1965).
Aase Law Firm, PLLC v. Aria Law Firm, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aase Law Firm, PLLC v. Aria Law Firm, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, -22 (1965).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Peter Gerard Lonergan. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Peter Gerard Lonergan. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sports Facilities Comm’n v. Minn. Twins P’ship, -21 (Minn. App. 2002) (citing Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274- 75, -22 (1965)), review denied (Minn. Feb.
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
Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, -22 (1965).
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 865 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dahlberg Bros., -22 (Minn. 1965).
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bemidji Township v. City of Bemidji, Northern Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Township also claims that, in enjoining the Township from conducting certain activities, the district court was required to analyze the temporary injunction factors in Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274–75, – 22 (1965).
Medtronic, Inc. v. Michael Doerr Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Medtronic, Inc. v. Michael Doerr Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On June 26, 2014, the district court filed its order concluding that after weighing the factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, the “balance of harms analysis favors Medtronic as it relates to the injunction concerning [Doerr and Bartels] and Mr. Vega in Kalamazoo, but favors K2M as it relates to the injunction request concerning .
Ken B. Peterson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ken B. Peterson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274–75, –22 (1965) (describing five considerations relevant to granting an equitable injunction).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson and its Commissioner of Commerce, Michael Rothman v. CashCall, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson and its Commissioner of Commerce, Michael Rothman v. CashCall, … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, - 22 (1965) (citations omitted).
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hatch v. Cross Country Bank, Inc., (holding that a district court is not required to make findings under Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) before enjoining statutory violations).
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Softchoice, Inc. v. Schmidt 763 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Softchoice, Inc. v. Schmidt 763 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. RPC Properties, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2008
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
See Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Cross Country Bank, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Cross Country Bank, Inc. 703 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Airports Comm’n, -58 (Minn.App.1999) (citing Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965)).
Edina Community Lutheran Church v. State 673 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Edina Community Lutheran Church v. State 673 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Sports Facilities Comm’n v. Minn. Twins P’ship., -21 (Minn.App.2002) (citing Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965)), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Haley v. Forcelle 669 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Haley v. Forcelle 669 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (footnotes omitted).
Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that *804 decision to issue injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (listing factors to consider before granting injunctive relief).
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 638 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 638 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (footnotes omitted).
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The court analyzed the case under the factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
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
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., see also Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , (listing considerations for determining whether temporary injunction appropriate).
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
No. 11, (citing Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965)).
Queen City Construction, Inc. v. City of Rochester 604 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Queen City Construction, Inc. v. City of Rochester 604 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
But in order to merit injunctive relief, Queen City must also demonstrate its entitlement under the five factors set forth in Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965):(1) the relationship between the parties; (2) the relative hardship; (3) the likelihood of success; (4) the public interest; and (5) any administrative burdens.
Eason v. Independent School District No. 11 598 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Eason v. Independent School District No. 11 598 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
City of Mounds View v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 590 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
City of Mounds View v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 590 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965), enumerates the factors: (1) the parties’ relationship prior to the dispute; *358 (2) the weight of the irreparable harm alleged by the party seeking the injunction compared to the weight of the harm suffered by the other party if the injunction is granted; (3) the likelihood th
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998