DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

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., Respondents, 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standard of review in nuisance cases and others involving equitable relief is whether the [district] 5 This case is nonprecedential and, therefore, not binding.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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Co. v. Belland , (citing City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., ).
  • Pohocogo, LLC, Appellant, 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., Appellants, 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