Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Edin v. Jostens, Inc., 343 N.W.2d 691.

46 citing documents.

Community First Bank v. First United Funding, LLC 822 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Community First Bank v. First United Funding, LLC 822 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Equity Trust Co. Custodian FBO Heather Eisenmenger Ira v. Cole 766 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Equity Trust Co. Custodian FBO Heather Eisenmenger Ira v. Cole 766 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
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
Compare Hruska v. Chandler Assocs., Inc., (employer’s failure to pay discharged employee’s full salary — since recovered — for a brief period in the past did not constitute “unclean hands” rendering noncompete clause unenforceable) with Edin v. Jostens, Inc., (refusing to enforce a restrictive covenant after employee wrongfully terminated).
Marriage of Christenson v. Christenson 490 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Christenson v. Christenson 490 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage 426 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage 426 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Edin v. Josten’s, Inc., (injunctive relief will not be granted where conduct has been unconscionable by reason of bad motive).
Krueger v. Washington Federal Savings Bank of Montevideo 406 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krueger v. Washington Federal Savings Bank of Montevideo 406 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
E.g., Edin v. Jostens, Inc.
Creative Communications Consultants, Inc. v. Gaylord 403 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Creative Communications Consultants, Inc. v. Gaylord 403 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
DISCUSSION The sole issue on appeal of a temporary injunction is whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion “by disregard of facts or applicable principles of equity.” Edin v. Josten’s, Inc.
Drummond v. Hoelscher 383 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Drummond v. Hoelscher 383 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“Ruling on motions for temporary injunction is largely an exercise of judicial discretion, and the sole question presented on appeal is whether there was clear abuse thereof by disregard of facts or applicable principles of equity.” Edin v. Jostens, Inc., quoting Cramond v. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, 267 Minn. 229
Griffin Companies v. First National Bank of St. Paul 374 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Griffin Companies v. First National Bank of St. Paul 374 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse International, Inc. v. Forsland 371 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Henley v. County of Chisago 370 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse International, Inc. v. Forsland 371 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Henley v. County of Chisago 370 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondents, see, e.g., Edin v. Josten’s, Inc., we hold that possession of the road by Lent and Branch was sufficiently shown under subdivision 6 to overcome the conclusive presumption of abandonment set forth in subdivision 5 of the MTA.
Loxtercamp, Inc. v. Belgrade Cooperative Ass'n 368 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Loxtercamp, Inc. v. Belgrade Cooperative Ass'n 368 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Beckman v. Universal Enterprises, Inc. 367 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Beckman v. Universal Enterprises, Inc. 367 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Integrated Development & Manufacturing Co. v. University of Minnesota 363 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Integrated Development & Manufacturing Co. v. University of Minnesota 363 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See also Miller v. Foley at 712; and Edin v. Jostens, Inc.
Miller v. City of Saint Paul 363 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Miller v. City of Saint Paul 363 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The granting of an injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and “ ‘the sole question presented on appeal is whether there was clear abuse thereof by disregard of facts or applicable principles of equity.’ ” Edin v. Jostens, Inc., (Minn.Ct.
North Star State Bank of Roseville v. North Star Bank Minnesota 361 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
North Star State Bank of Roseville v. North Star Bank Minnesota 361 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing Edin v. Jostens, Inc., ).
Saliterman v. Finney 361 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Saliterman v. Finney 361 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Weber v. United Parcel Service 358 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Weber v. United Parcel Service 358 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
PARADATA OF MINN. v. Fox 356 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
PARADATA OF MINN. v. Fox 356 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hunt v. Estate of Hanson 356 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hunt v. Estate of Hanson 356 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Narveson v. White 355 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Narveson v. White 355 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The granting of an injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and “the sole question presented on appeal is whether there was clear abuse thereof by disregard of facts or applicable principles of equity.” Edin v. Jostens, Inc., (citation and emphasis omitted).
Yager v. Thompson 352 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Yager v. Thompson 352 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The granting of an injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and “ ‘the sole question presented on appeal is whether there was clear abuse thereof .by disregard of facts or applicable principles of equity.’ ” Edin v. Jostens, Inc.
State v. $14,000 Dollars in Various Denominations of United States Currency 345 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. $14,000 Dollars in Various Denominations of United States Currency 345 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268