Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325D.072 (2026)

Injunctive Relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In addition to the penalties provided in section 325D.071, the courts of this state are hereby vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 325D.02 to 325D.07. Any person, partnership, corporation, or association damaged, or who is threatened with loss or injury, by reason of a violation of these sections shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction against any damage or threatened loss or injury by reason of a violation thereof and for the amount of the actual damages, if any. In order to obtain such injunctive relief it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that an adequate remedy at law does not exist.

No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, contracts, agreements, and documents in any case or proceedings instituted or brought under the provisions of sections 325D.02 to 325D.072, or in obedience to a subpoena, in any such case or proceedings, on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to criminate or subject the person to a penalty or forfeiture; but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which the person may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, in any such case or proceedings, or in obedience to a subpoena, in any such case or proceedings.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 702 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 702 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). “03 and § 325D.072 ■Count 7: Fraud by Nondisclosure • Count 8: Filed Rate Doctrine Each count in the complaint was based on State Farm charging an allegedly improper rate, a rate that was approved by the Commissioner of Commerce in 1997 and then subject to a consent order in 2002.”
Boyd v. Target Corp. (D. Minnesota 2024). · cites it 2× “3a and Minn. Stat. § 325D.072). Plaintiffs also argue that Targets’ position would require a premature choice-of-law analysis that is better postponed until class certification.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.