Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch, 502 N.W.2d 796.

173 citing documents.

John Howard Bartz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re: The Power of Attorney Granted by Virginia G. Taraldson dated August 23, 2007 to Kathleen P. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Howard Bartz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 (2014) (“Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are not precedential.”); Dynamic Air, (holding that unpublished opinions may be persuasive).
In re: The Power of Attorney Granted by Virginia G. Taraldson dated August 23, 2007 to Kathleen P. … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
of Bloomington, Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2004) (stating that unpublished opinions are not precedential) (citing Dynamic Air, ).
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08 (2014); see also Vlahos v. R&I Const. of Bloomington, Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2004) (stating that unpublished opinions are not precedential) (citing Dynamic Air, ).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
28, 2015); see Dynamic Air, Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd.
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
1 Under the blue-pencil doctrine, a district court that finds a noncompetition provision unreasonable as written may modify the provision “to render it reasonable and enforceable.” Dynamic Air
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Criticized State of Minnesota v. Octavius Marcus Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Dynamic Air, (holding that unpublished cases from the Minnesota Court of Appeals can be of persuasive value).
Linda K. Yonak v. Hawker Well Works, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Linda K. Yonak v. Hawker Well Works, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When examining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant, a district court should consider “the nature and character of the employment, the nature and extent of the business, the time for which the restriction is imposed, the territorial extent of the covenant, and other pertinent conditions.” Dynamic Air
Sarber v. Commissioner of Public Safety 819 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sarber v. Commissioner of Public Safety 819 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
3 (2010) (“Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are not precedential.”); Dynamic Air, (recognizing that unpublished opinions may be persuasive).
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of Saint Paul v. Eldredge 788 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
And although unpublished cases may have persuasive value, see Dynamic Air, (Minn.App.
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Skyline Village Park Ass'n v. Skyline Village L.P. 786 N.W.2d 304 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Omwega 769 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Omwega 769 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
3(c) (2008) (stating that "[ujnpublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential”); Dynamic Air, (holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value "[a]t best” and not precedential).
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
3 (2008) (“[Ujnpublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential.”); Dynamic Air, (holding that unpublished opinions may be persuasive).
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
3(c) (2002); Dynamic Air, -01 (Minn.App.1993).
Roer v. Dunham 682 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Roer v. Dunham 682 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
3(c) (2002) (stating "[u]n-published opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential"); Dynamic Air, -01 (Minn.App.1993) (stating dangers of miscitation and unfairness associated with use of unpublished opinions and that while persuasive, "[t]he legislature has unequivocally provided that unpublished opinions are not precedential”).
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc. 676 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2004
Vogelsberg v. Vogelsberg 672 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Distinguished Vogelsberg v. Vogelsberg 672 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
3(c) (2002); Dynamic Air
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
3(c) (2002) (stating "[ujnpublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential”) (emphasis added); Dynamic Air, -01 (Minn.App.1993) (stating dangers of miscitation and unfairness associated with use of unpublished opinions and that while persuasive, "[t]he legislature has unequivocally provided that unpublished opinions are not precedential”).
State v. Flicek 657 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Distinguished State v. Flicek 657 N.W.2d 592 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Oct.1, 1991) (affirming the use of the trial date as the valuation date where district court made specific finding that such a date was the most equitable valuation date and the selection of such a date was reasonable and supported by the evidence); but see Dynamic Air, (holding that unpublished opinions are, "[a]t best,” of persuasive value).
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 644 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 644 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Timmer 641 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Timmer 641 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Dynamic Air, (holding that unpublished decisions are of persuasive value, at best).
In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Dynamic Air, (holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value "[a]t best” and not precedential); see Minn.Stat.
Gerding v. Commissioner of Public Safety 628 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2001