Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911.

24 citing documents.

Pioneer Bank v. Might Enterprises, Inc., et al., The 209 Group, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
& Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co., 28 rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., et al., Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, et al, Becker County, et al., St. Louis County, … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
& Irrigation, rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Ellie Fam LLC v. Felipe Coelho, et al. (A25-1515), Ellie Fam LLC, vs. Jim Baffone, et al. (A25-1517), … Minn. Ct. App. 2026
To support this argument, franchisees rely on a sentence in Pacific Equipment & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co., that states, “[The moving party] must show irreparable harm to trigger an injunction, while [the nonmovant] need only show substantial harm to bar it.” d 911, 915 (Minn. App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Laurie J. Stangel, et al v. Elliot Day Whipple, Jordan Gall, Greg Rutten Minn. Ct. App. 2023
& Irr., rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
East Phillips Neighborhood Institute, Inc., et al v. The City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
& Irr., Inc. v. Toro Co. , d 911, 917 (Minn. App. 1994) (reasoning that district court properly considered Dahlberg factors because parties disputed the applicability of the Minnesota Franchise Act), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Nancy S. Schneider, et al v. Merrill G. Oestreich, Linda Oestreich, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
& Irrigation., Inc. v. Toro Co. , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
& Irr., review denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brad Ronald Stevens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brad Ronald Stevens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
& Irr., (“Our standard of review is narrow, and we find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in denying [appellant’s] request for injunctive relief.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
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
& Irrigation, review denied (Minn. Sept.
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
& review denied (Minn. Sept.
Eason v. Independent School District No. 11 598 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Eason v. Independent School District No. 11 598 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
& review denied (Minn. Sept.
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
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
& Irrigation, (“The applicability of the franchise act is important because if the franchise act applies, the analysis of the Dahlberg factors may change substantially.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Unlimited Horizon Marketing, Inc. v. Precision Hub, Inc. 533 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Unlimited Horizon Marketing, Inc. v. Precision Hub, Inc. 533 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State ex rel. Ulland v. International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America 527 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State ex rel. Ulland v. International Ass'n of Entrepreneurs of America 527 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1995