Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Crowley Co. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, 394 N.W.2d 542.

45 citing documents.

Aisha Roble and OBO Minor Children, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Stephen Eric Baldwin, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Todd Brian Kerber, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Airports Comm’n, d 542, 545 (Minn. App. 1986) (quotation omitted).
All-American Ice L.L.C., d/b/a All-American Arena Products, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
While the 22 (stating that when a district court did not analyze the Dahlberg factors, this court could not determine whether the district court abused its discretion); see also In re Amitad, Inc., (“Where the trial court has broad discretion, the Minnesota Supreme Co
Heritage Bank, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rosetta Muscianese, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Airports Comm’n, (“Generally, where the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed, the judgment of the trial court can be upheld in the absence of trial court findings made pursuant to Rule 52.01.”) (internal quotations omitted).
Samantha Raye Meyer v. Robert J. Harley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Samantha Raye Meyer v. Robert J. Harley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Airports Comm’n, (quotation omitted).
In re the Estate of Harry L. Housker, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of Harry L. Housker, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Airports Comm’n, (citing Lafayette Club v. Roberts, 196 Minn. 605, 611, 265 N.W.
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
Airports Comm’n, ("[WJhere the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed, the judgment of the trial court can be upheld in the absence of trial court findings made pursuant to Rule 52.01.”) (quoting Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ).
State v. HA 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. H.A. 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. H.A. 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Airports Comm’n, (noting that, absent findings, it is impossible to know what the district court concluded on the issues and, thus, whether denial of a motion was an abuse of discretion).
State v. HA 716 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Airports Comm'n, (noting that, absent findings, it is impossible to know what the district court concluded on the issues and, thus, whether denial of a motion was an abuse of discretion).
Edina Community Lutheran Church v. State 673 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Edina Community Lutheran Church v. State 673 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
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
Airports Commn, -45 (Minn.App.1986) (remanding appeal from denial of injunction for district court to make necessary findings).
State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Oanes 543 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
52.01 1985 advisory comm, note (explaining factual findings exist to permit meaningful appellate review) with Crowley Co. v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, (recognizing that appellate courts may exercise their function in the absence of findings, provided that the record is reasonably clear and the facts are not seriously disputed and quoting Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , as authority).
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
“[T]he trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a temporary injunction, and the Dahlberg factors are to be applied in determining whether the court has abused its discretion.” Crowley Co. v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n
Bell v. Olson 424 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bell v. Olson 424 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Crowley Co., Inc. *832 v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, -45 (Minn.Ct.App.
Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. v. Microfresh Foods Corp. 424 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Oxford Development, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 417 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Oxford Development, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 417 N.W.2d 319 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
Minnesota Best Maid Cookie Co. v. Flour Pot Cookie Co. 412 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Best Maid Cookie Co. v. Flour Pot Cookie Co. 412 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nonetheless, in Crowley Company, (citing Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ), although reversing the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief because the denial was not supported by the record, we observed: where the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed, the judgme
Central Lakes Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 743 411 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Mark Lee Productions, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minneapolis Community Development Agency v. Mark Lee Productions, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Central Lakes Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 743 411 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Bio-Line, (no findings or analysis); (no findings, conclusion or explanation of basis of decision).
Ensco International, Inc. v. Blegen 410 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Quist v. Kroening 410 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Quist v. Kroening 410 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(if no findings in appellant’s favor are justified, trial court’s failure to make findings is harmless error).
Ensco International, Inc. v. Blegen 410 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In Crowley Co., we noted that limited exceptions exist to the general requirement under rule 52.01 that a trial court make specific findings: (1) when the record is clear and the facts not seriously disputed; and (2) when the decision necessarily decides all the disputed facts or, if not all disputed facts, all ma
Bio-Line, Inc. v. Burman 404 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bio-Line, Inc. v. Burman 404 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Voluntary Dissolution of Quintar, Inc. v. MBC, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Voluntary Dissolution of Quintar, Inc. v. MBC, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wallin v. Wallin, 290 Minn. 261, 267 , (court of appeals remanded due to lack of findings supporting denial of temporary injunction).