Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miller v. Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710.

69 citing documents.

Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
DECISION “A temporary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy.” Miller v. Foley
A25-1517 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The purpose of a temporary injunction is “to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on its merits.”
A25-1473 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Its purpose is to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on its merits.”
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Temporary injunctive relief “is an extraordinary equitable remedy.”
Larry Koch, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982) (stating that a temporary injunction requires a clear showing of irreparable injury in consideration of the Dahlberg factors); see also M.G.M.
Minnesota Duty Disabled Association (MNDDA), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Estate of: Joseph Rocco Figliuzzi, Minn. 2022
Pilot Air Freight, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State, Minn. 2020
(stating that “five factors [are] to be considered in making [the] determination” that “the rights of a party will be irreparably injured before a trial on the merits is held”).
Nick Kossick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
App. P. 103.03(b), which authorizes an appeal “from an order which grants, refuses, dissolves or refuses to dissolve, an injunction.” A temporary injunction is “an extraordinary equitable remedy,” and its purpose is “to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on its merits.” Miller v. Foley
A19-0507 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Its purpose is to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on its merits.”
EMERGE Community Development, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Irv’s Boomin’ Fireworks, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Advance Contract Equipment and Design LC, d/b/a, Rapids Foodservice Contract and Design v. Kevin LaMere, Horizon Equipment LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Advance Contract Equipment and Design LC, d/b/a, Rapids Foodservice Contract and Design v. Kevin LaMere, Horizon Equipment LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schwan 687 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schwan 687 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Haley v. Forcelle 669 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Haley v. Forcelle 669 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy.”
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
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1 v. Phillips 625 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
Improvement of County Ditch No. 86, Branch 1 v. Phillips 625 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 2001
Blue Earth County Pork Producers, Inc. v. County of Blue Earth 558 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Blue Earth County Pork Producers, Inc. v. County of Blue Earth 558 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
the supreme court stated: When considering decisions of a governmental unit involving judgment and discretion, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the governmental unit.
Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co. 519 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co. 519 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Winberg v. University of Minnesota 485 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Winberg v. University of Minnesota 485 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
see also Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 , 94 S.Ct.
City of Rochester v. People's Cooperative Power Ass'n 483 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 1992
City of Rochester v. People's Cooperative Power Ass'n 483 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 1992
Housing & Redevelopment Authority v. Minneapolis Metropolitan Co., 259 Minn. 1
Earth Protector, Inc. v. City of Hopkins 474 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Earth Protector, Inc. v. City of Hopkins 474 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Morse v. City of Waterville 458 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Morse v. City of Waterville 458 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
County of Winona v. City of Winona 453 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
County of Winona v. City of Winona 453 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The purpose of a temporary injunction is “to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on the merits.”
State Ex Rel. Drabik v. Martz 451 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Ex Rel. Drabik v. Martz 451 N.W.2d 893 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage 426 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage 426 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
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
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
-46 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) ().
Allstate Sales & Leasing Co. v. Geis 412 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1987

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by