Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. Ulland v. International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America, 527 N.W.2d 133.

17 citing documents.

A25-1517 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(same), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See State by Ulland v. Int’l Ass’n of Entrepreneurs of Am., (explaining that application of Dahlberg is required when there is a dispute over the applicability of the statute authorizing injunctive relief), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
East Phillips Neighborhood Institute, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Three years after Wadena, we decided State by Ulland v. Int’l Ass’n of Entrepreneurs of Amer., rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health in her official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
by statute proper exercise of discretion requires the issuance of an injuncti on if the prerequisites for the remedy have been demonstrated and the in junction would fulfill the legi slative purposes behind the statute’s enactment.” Wadena, d at 389 (citing United States v. White , 769 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir. 1985)); see also State by Ulland v. Int’l Ass’n. of Entrepreneurs of Am., (approving use of Wadena standard in context of temporary injunction except when a party disputes that it was subje
Followed Alaaldeen Mussa, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State by Ulland v. Int’l Ass’n of Entrepreneurs of Am., (“[T]his court is 7 not bound by precedent from other st ates or the federal courts.”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
A19-0507 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Where the [district] court fails to analyze the Dahlberg factors in granting a temporary injunction, the court commits error.” State by Ulland v. In t’l Ass’n of Entrepreneurs of Am., review denied (Minn. Apr.
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
136 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Heritage Bank, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ulland v. Int’l Ass’n of Entrepreneurs of Am., (“[T]his court is not bound by precedent from other states or the federal courts .”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Distinguished , A17-2080, A17-2081, A18-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ulland v. Int’l Ass’n of Entrepreneurs of Am., (“[T]his court is not bound by precedent from other states or the federal courts.
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See State by Ulland v. Int’l Ass’n of Entrepreneurs of Am., (“Furthermore, this court is not bound by precedent from other states or the federal courts.”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
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
of Entrepreneurs of Am., (approving use of Wadena factors in context of temporary injunction except when a party disputed that it was subject to the statute to be enforced, in which case the trial court must consider the Dahlberg factors), review denied (Minn. Apr.
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
Assn. of Entrepreneurs of Am., review denied (Minn. Apr.