Cited by

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

235 citing documents.

Hollenkamp v. Peters 358 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Edin v. Jostens, Inc., (citing Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264 , ).
Kari Family Clinic of Chiropractic, P.A. v. Bohnen 349 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kari Family Clinic of Chiropractic, P.A. v. Bohnen 349 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dahlberg Bros. Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264
OT Industries, Inc. v. OT-tehdas Oy Santasalo-Sohlberg AB 346 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
OT Industries, Inc. v. OT-tehdas Oy Santasalo-Sohlberg AB 346 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
This court, citing Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264 , has specified five factors to be considered in determining whether a temporary injunction should issue: (1) the nature of the relationship between the parties before the dispute giving rise to the request for relief; (2) the harm to be suffered
Edin v. Jostens, Inc. 343 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Edin v. Jostens, Inc. 343 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ANALYSIS The factors to be considered in determining whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief were outlined in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264 , : (1) the nature of the relationship between the parties before the dispute giving rise to the request for relief; (2) the harm to be suffered by the moving party if the preliminary injunction is denied as compared to that inflicted o
Miller v. Foley 317 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1982
Miller v. Foley 317 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1982
In Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. , 272 Minn. 264 , this court specified five factors to be considered in 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. Foley 315 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1982
Miller v. Foley 315 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1982
937 , 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974); Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc. 313 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1981
Costley v. Caromin House, Inc. 313 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1981
In Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274-75 , -22 (1965), this court specified five factors to be considered in making that determination: (1) The nature and background of the relationship between the parties preexisting the dispute giving rise to the request for relief.
Berggren v. Town of Duluth 304 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1981
Berggren v. Town of Duluth 304 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1981
d at 32 ; Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 275
Eakman v. Brutger 285 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1979
Eakman v. Brutger 285 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1979
In Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274 , we specified the considerations relevant in making that determination: (1) The nature and background of the relationship between the parties preexisting the dispute giving rise to the request for relief.
Hvamstad v. City of Rochester 276 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1979
Hvamstad v. City of Rochester 276 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 1979
This court, in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 274 , articulated five considerations relevant in reviewing the trial court’s determination of- whether to issue or deny temporary injunctive relief: “(1) The nature and background of the relationship between the parties preexisting the dispute giving rise to the request for relief.
Minnesota Medical Ass'n v. State 274 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1978
Minnesota Medical Ass'n v. State 274 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1978
Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264
Bud Johnson Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 272 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1978
Bud Johnson Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 272 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1978
In Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 272 Minn. 264, 274 , this court articulated five considerations relevant to a review of the trial court’s determination of whether to issue or deny injunctive relief: “(1) The nature and background of the relationship between the parties preexisting the dispute giving rise to the request for relief.
Shaffer v. Brooklyn Park Garden Apartments 250 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1977
Shaffer v. Brooklyn Park Garden Apartments 250 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1977
In Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 272 Minn. 264 , this court stated five factors to be considered by an appellate court in deciding whether to reverse or affirm the grant or denial of temporary injunctive relief by a trial court.
Pickerign v. Pasco Marketing, Inc. 228 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1975
Pickerign v. Pasco Marketing, Inc. 228 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1975
Such a holding would be consistent with the standards we adopted in Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 272 Minn. 264, 274
Chalfen v. MEDICAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION 210 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1973
Chalfen v. MEDICAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION 210 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1973
We recognize that under the rules adopted for testing the propriety of temporary injunctions, we have cited as a criterion “[t]he likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits when the fact situation is viewed in light of established precedents fixing the limits of equitable relief.” Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 272 Minn. 264, 275 , .
Thompson v. Barnes 200 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1972
Thompson v. Barnes 200 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1972
10 See, also, Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 272 Minn. 264, 274 , Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington, 264 Minn. 133 , Independent School Dist.
Chicago Avenue Floral Company v. Traxler 169 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 1969
Chicago Avenue Floral Company v. Traxler 169 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 1969
See, also, Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 272 Minn. 264 , 137 N. W. (2d) 314 .
Target Stores, Inc. v. Twin Plaza Co. 153 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1967
Target Stores, Inc. v. Twin Plaza Co. 153 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1967
Compare, Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 272 Minn. 264 , 137 N. W. (2d) 314 .