Cited by

In Howard v. Svoboda, the supreme court ruled that we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider a district court’s protective order under rule 103.03(b) because it “was neither styled as, nor had the characteristics of, an injunction.”

We have held that this rule also allows interlocutory appeals from “orders that grant or deny injunctions in effect but not in name.” ().

6 (Minn. 2017); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See, e.g., Howard v. Svoboda , (vacating a court of appeals decision for lack of appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order); (vacating a court of appeals decision because the judge was disqualified from hearing the appeal); –90 (Mi

–15 (Minn. 2017) (referring to the Dahlberg factors as “equitable factors” that must be applied to a motion for a temporary injunction).

Howard v. Svoboda , , 114 (Minn. 2017).

” Howard v. Svoboda (Howard I), vacated

-15 (Minn. 2017), the district court's order did not deny injunctive relief.