Cited by

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

235 citing documents.

Bell v. Olson 424 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
2d at 544 (citing Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965)).
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
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Oxford Development, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 417 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Oxford Development, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 417 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In ruling upon a motion for a temporary injunction, the trial court generally must consider the five factors for reviewing the grant or denial of a temporary injunction set out in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Wakefield v. Anchor Bancorp, Inc. 416 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wakefield v. Anchor Bancorp, Inc. 416 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Village of Blaine v. Independent School District No. 12, 265 Minn. 9, 13 , (cited in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274 , ).
Minnesota Best Maid Cookie Co. v. Flour Pot Cookie Co. 412 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Best Maid Cookie Co. v. Flour Pot Cookie Co. 412 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
An independent review of the provisions of the December 11 order convinces us that it met the requirements for specificity set forth in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 272 Minn. 264, 274-75, -22 (1965).
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
ANALYSIS I. The District first argues that we must remand because the trial court failed *878 to make findings on the five factors set forth for reviewing grants or denials of temporary injunctions in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Alexander v. Severson 408 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Alexander v. Severson 408 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (footnotes omitted).
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
(citing Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965)).
Lano Equipment, Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co. 399 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lano Equipment, Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co. 399 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (footnotes omitted).
Satellite Industries, Inc. v. Keeling 396 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Satellite Industries, Inc. v. Keeling 396 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
STATE EX REL. NEIGHBORS ORG., ETC. v. Dotty 396 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
STATE EX REL. NEIGHBORS ORG., ETC. v. Dotty 396 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
To make this determination, this court reviews *59 the trial court's application of the test set out in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264
Crowley Co. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 394 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Crowley Co. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission 394 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Rolander v. Meeker County 392 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rolander v. Meeker County 392 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Carlen v. Klammer 388 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Carlen v. Klammer 388 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Villaume Industries, Inc. v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners 386 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
County of Wright v. Litfin 386 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
County of Wright v. Litfin 386 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (footnotes omitted).
Villaume Industries, Inc. v. Dakota County Board of Commissioners 386 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264 , the supreme court specified five factors to be considered in granting or denying a temporary injunction: (1) The nature and background of the relationship between the parties preexist *348 ing the dispute giving rise to the request for relief.
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
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (footnotes omitted).
Howe v. Howe 384 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Howe v. Howe 384 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See also Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965) (court enumerates the same factors).
Rosewood Mortgage Corp. v. Hefty 383 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rosewood Mortgage Corp. v. Hefty 383 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse International, Inc. v. Forsland 371 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse International, Inc. v. Forsland 371 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965).
Insurance Federation of Minnesota v. Hatch 370 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Insurance Federation of Minnesota v. Hatch 370 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
3.The trial court considered the factors in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 272 Minn. 264 , in determining whether a temporary injunction should issue.
Integrated Development & Manufacturing Co. v. University of Minnesota 363 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Integrated Development & Manufacturing Co. v. University of Minnesota 363 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264 , the court specified five factors that are relevant to making that determination: (1) The nature and background of the relationship between the parties preexisting the dispute giving rise to the request for relief.
Miller v. City of Saint Paul 363 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Miller v. City of Saint Paul 363 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The trial court considered the factors set forth in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264 , which are to be used in determining whether a temporary injunction should issue.
North Star State Bank of Roseville v. North Star Bank Minnesota 361 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
North Star State Bank of Roseville v. North Star Bank Minnesota 361 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
d at 693 (citing Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 272 Minn. 264 , ).
Hollenkamp v. Peters 358 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 1984