Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 585.02 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1974 c 394 s 11]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1945–1979 · leading case: Nationwide Corp. v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins., 87 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1958).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nationwide Corp. v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins., 87 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1958). · cites it 3× “) Section 585.02, which deals with the issuance of an injunction, reads in part: “When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief consists wholly or partly in restraining the commission or continuance of some act which, if…”

Bellows v. Ericson, 46 N.W.2d 654 (Minn. 1951). · cites it 3× “03 of our statutes provides that the district court shall have power “to issue writs of injunction, ne exeat, certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, and all other writs, processes, and orders necessary to the complete exercise of the jurisdiction vested in them by…”

Mason v. Farmers Ins. Companies, 281 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. 1979). “1971, § 585.02. In Pickerígn , however, the contracts provided absolutely no protection to the station operator beyond 30-day notice.”

Williams v. Rolfe, 101 N.W.2d 923 (Minn. 1960). · cites it 2× “Section 585.02 prescribes the circumstances under which a temporary injunction may be granted.”

Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 35 v. Engelstad, 144 N.W.2d 245 (Minn. 1966). · cites it 2× “Appellants argue that the holding of the election, which took place shortly after the denial of the second application for a temporary injunction, has in fact resulted in a substantial threatened and irreparable harm to them. *249 They argue that the new board has authority to…”

Cramond v. AFL-CIO, 126 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. 1964). “The trial court did not feel that it was necessary to pass on this issue since the requested injunction was denied. We likewise deem it unnecessary to determine whether the statute applies and whether its requirements were satisfied.”

Pickerign v. Pasco Mktg., Inc., 228 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. 1975). “1971, § 585.02, provides in part as follows: “When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief consists wholly or partly in restraining the commission or continuance of some act which, if permitted during the litigation,…”

Vill. of Blaine v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12, 121 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. 1963). “) 3 § 585.02 provides: “When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief consists wholly or partly in restraining the commission or continuance of some act which, if permitted during the litigation, would work injury to the…”

Minnesota Council of State Employees v. Am. Fed'n of State, 19 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 1945). · cites it 3× “That court considered only the one issue and did *193 not decide questions which, presumably, could be determined only upon the presentation of evidence necessary to establish plaintiffs’ right to injunctive relief under § 585.”

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.