Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203.

76 citing documents.

Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The district court has discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction, and appellate courts will reverse only for “clear abuse of that discretion.” Carl Bolander &
A25-1517 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A decision on whether to grant a temporary injunction is left to the discretion of the [district] court and will not be overturned on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Carl Bolander &
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A decision on whether to grant a temporary injunction is left to the discretion of the [district] court and will not be overturned on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Carl Bolander &
Keith J. Unger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
not the findings of the [district] court.” Carl Bolander & d 764, 775-76 (Minn. App. 2025) (reviewing the proceedings of the town board’s cartway decision directly, rather than the findings of the district court), rev. granted (Minn. May 28, 2025).
In the Matter of the Decision on the Petition Requesting the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6 (2021); see also Carl Bolander & (“The threshold requirement of this statute, however, is whether the project 6 may harm the environment.”).
Peter Gerard Lonergan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis
In the Matter of the Determination of Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Border to Border … Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Id.; Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis , (classifying an EAW petitioner’s burden of providin g evidence of significant environmental effects as a “minimal standard”), aff’d
State of Minnesota, by Jan Malcolm, Commissioner of Health in her official capacity, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A decision on whether to grant a temporar y injunction is left to the discretion of the [district] court and will not be overturned on review ab sent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Carl Bolander &
Woodland Gale Owners’ Association, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
not the findings of the [district] court.” Carl Bolander &
Nick Kossick, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis
Nancy Leppink, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis , 209 (Minn. 1993) (temporary injunction); Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., (permanent injunction).
Rodrigo Esparza, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N The district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction, and appellate courts will reverse only for “clear abuse of that discretion.” Carl Bolander &
Medtronic, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Medtronic, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A decision on whether to grant a temporary injunction is left to the discretion of the [district] court and will not be overturned on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis
LeRoy J. Rossow, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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
Aase Law Firm, PLLC v. Aria Law Firm, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Aase Law Firm, PLLC v. Aria Law Firm, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Carl Bolander & review denied (Minn. Nov.
In the Matter of the Civil COMMITMENT OF Kenneth Donald HAND 878 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil COMMITMENT OF Kenneth Donald HAND 878 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Carl Bolander & (temporary injunction); Bio-Line, (TRO).
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
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. 3 City of Minneapolis
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. 868 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
See, e.g., Carl Bolander & (applying the unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious standard of review to a city’s decision to require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet before approving a project).
Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 811 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2012
Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. Partnership 811 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2012
Softchoice, Inc. v. Schmidt 763 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Softchoice, Inc. v. Schmidt 763 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
ANALYSIS “A decision on whether to grant a temporary injunction is left to the discre *666 tion of the trial court and will not be overturned on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Carl Bolander &amp
Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners 728 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners 728 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
2a(c); Carl Bolander &amp
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
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
Transit Team, Inc. v. Metropolitan Council 679 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Transit Team, Inc. v. Metropolitan Council 679 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
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 decision on whether to grant a temporary injunction is left to the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Carl Bolander & (citations omitted).
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis 653 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Carl Bolander & (“The standard of review is whether the [council’s] decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given.”); Van-Landschoot v. City of Mendota Heights
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
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
Carl Bolander & U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Angeion Corp.
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Michels v. Kozitza 610 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
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