Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 251 N.W.2d 642.

31 citing documents.

Joy Litke, et al v. Home Heritage Holdings, LLC, et al., Larson Abstract Company, Inc., vs. Wausau Homes, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
of discretion); Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (reviewing district court’s equitable-subrogation decision for an abuse of discretion); (reviewing district court’s decision on motion for equitable relief for an abuse of discretion); City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., (“The standard of review in nuisance cases and others involving equitable relief is whether the [district] 5 This case is nonprecedential and, therefore, not binding.
David Carl Hepfl v. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft 9 N.W.3d 567 Minn. 2024
David Carl Hepfl v. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft 9 N.W.3d 567 Minn. 2024
These three facts more than suffice to conclude that the district court did not abuse its “broad discretion” in resolving unjust enrichment claims when it entered judgment in Hepfl’s favor.5 Herlache, d at 451 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., ).
Paul Herlache, Minn. 2023
Moreover, because unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine, the district court has “broad discretion in fashioning remedies.” City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., see State v. Minn. Sch.
In re the Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke v. Susan Lynn Webb Leeke, n/k/a Susan Lynn Leeke Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co. v. Belland , (citing City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., ).
Pohocogo, LLC v. Paul Cassidy, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See City of Cloquet 6 v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., (stating that standard of review in equitable-relief cases is whether the district court abused its discretion).
North Country Tire and Auto, Inc., et al v. David Leonard Anderson, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc.
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
We have previously said, however, that “[gjranting equitable relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court [and] [o]nly a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.” accord City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279 , (“The standard of review in nuisance cases and others involving equitable relief is whether the trial court has abused its discretion.”).
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Johanns v. Minnesota Mobile Storage, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
P. 128.02(d); City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277 , 279 n. 1, , 644 n. 1 (1977) (stating that where a party provided minimal explanation of an issue and cites no supporting authority, issue will not be considered).
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bolander v. Bolander 703 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, e.g., City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279 , Beliveau v. Beliveau, 217 Minn. 235
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Belland 583 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Belland 583 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279
County of Dakota (CP 46-06) v. Lakeville 559 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
County of Dakota (CP 46-06) v. Lakeville 559 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277 , 279 n. 1, , 644 n. 1 (1977) (supreme court would not consider issue when party provided only minimal explanation of contention on appeal and cited no supporting authority); (issue not adequately argued or briefed on appeal deemed waived), review denied
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Wenzel v. Mathies 542 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cheme Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279 , Beliveau v. Beliveau, 217 Minn. 235, 245-46, see also Pooley v. Mankato Iron & Metal, Inc., -38 (Minn.App.1994) (courts may fashion equitable remedies to accomplish justice on facts of each case), review denied (Minn. May 17
Pooley v. Mankato Iron & Metal, Inc. 513 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pooley v. Mankato Iron & Metal, Inc. 513 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279 , (this court will not disturb a trial court’s grant of equitable relief unless it finds the trial court abused its discretion).
Lilyerd v. Carlson 478 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lilyerd v. Carlson 478 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
The standard of review in cases “involving equitable relief is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279
Spearman v. Spearman 408 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Spearman v. Spearman 408 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand and Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277
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
See City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand and Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279 , (citing Holmberg v. Bergin, 285 Minn. 250 , ).
LeZALLA v. State 366 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
LeZALLA v. State 366 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand and Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279
Clark v. Clark 288 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1979
Clark v. Clark 288 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1979
See, e. g., City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand and Gravel, Inc., 312 Minn. 277, 279 , Beliveau v. Beliveau, 217 Minn. 235