Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81.

238 citing documents.

State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass'n v. Nicollet County Board of County Commissioners 799 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., (quoting Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., , 93 n. 6 (Minn.1979)).
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 725 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 725 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Appellant argues that an injunction is inappropriate because the district court did not address whether respondent’s remedy at law is adequate and whether the injunction is necessary to prevent “great and irreparable injury.” Cheme Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.
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
See Mounds View, d at 357 (citing Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., and describing these factors as a “threshold showing,” necessary before application of the Dahlberg factors).
Free Press v. County of Blue Earth 677 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Free Press v. County of Blue Earth 677 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
While the decision whether to grant injunctive relief rests within the discretion of the district court, Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., injunctions ordered under the open meeting law must serve the “policy and purposes expressed by the legislature,” and “fundamental fairness, if not due process, requires that [an] injunction be so tailored that the defendant knows with some reasonable degree of certainty what it is restrained from doi
Jackel v. Brower 668 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Jackel v. Brower 668 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Cherne Indus., Inc., v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.
Pioneer Peat, Inc. v. Quality Grassing & Services, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Pioneer Peat, Inc. v. Quality Grassing & Services, Inc. 653 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.
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
Cherne Indus., (citation omitted).
Burkstrand v. Burkstrand 632 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2001
Prolife Minnesota v. Minnesota Pro-Life Committee 632 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Prolife Minnesota v. Minnesota Pro-Life Committee 632 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc., (citation 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
Cheme Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc. 624 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., *807 92 (Minn.1979).
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).
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc. 606 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Jostens, Inc. v. National Computer Sys., Inc., (citing Ch erne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & As socs., Inc., ).
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
Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke 3 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs.
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community v. Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board 586 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(citing Cheme Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc. ).
Upper Midwest Sales Co. v. Ecolab, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Upper Midwest Sales Co. v. Ecolab, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc.
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Wicklund 576 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Our supreme court, while not specifically addressing the principle of “state action” in the context of article I, section 3, has noted that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech does not “provide protection or redress against abridgement by private individuals or corporations.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.
Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co. 575 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1998
Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co. 575 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1998
While ambiguities in contract agreements are resolved against the drafter, see, e.g., Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc., “[generally, an easement grant is to be strictly construed against the grant- or.” Bergh, d at 26 (citing Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160 , ).
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc. 573 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1998
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc. 573 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1998
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. 553 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. 553 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Cheme Indus, v. Grounds & As socs., -96 (Minn.1979) (assessing evidence of tortious interference with contract).
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
Ecolab, Inc. v. Gartland 537 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ecolab, Inc. v. Gartland 537 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
v. Grounds & Assocs., ).
Widmark v. Northrup King Co. 530 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Widmark v. Northrup King Co. 530 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
v. Grounds & Assocs., Aries Info.
Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc. 520 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc. 520 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Cf. Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., -96 (Minn.1979) (damage award based on malice upheld although court did not make explicit finding on malice).