N.D. Cent. Code » Title 32 · Chapter 32-05
North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 32-05-04 (2026)

When final injunction granted

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ND-LEGndlegis.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except when otherwise provided by this chapter, a final injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the applicant:

1. When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief;

2. When it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief;

3. When the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings; or

4. When the obligation arises from a trust.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Biever, Drees & Nordell v. Coutts, 305 N.W.2d 33 (N.D. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Biever, Drees & Nordell v. Coutts, 305 N.W.2d 33 (N.D. 1981). · cites it 8× “” Section 32-05-04 provides, in part: “Except when otherwise provided by this chapter, a final injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the applicant: “1.”
Magrinat v. Trinity Hosp., 540 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1995). · cites it 10× “Magrinat requested final injunctive relief under Section 32-05-04, N.D.C.C. Relief under Section 32-06-02, N.”
Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330. · cites it 4× “§ 32-05-03, “[preventive relief consists in prohibiting a party from doing that which ought not to be done” and “is granted by injunction, temporary or final.”
G & D Enter. v. Liebelt, 2020 ND 213, 949 N.W.2d 853. · cites it 2× “[¶29] Section 32-05-04, N.D.C.C., authorizes the district court to grant a final injunction “to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the applicant: 1.”
Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Brakke, 483 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 1992). · cites it 2× “FCB and Kirk respond that the district court did not abuse its discretion because a permanent injunction is the only means to prohibit the Brakkes from interfering with their lawful ownership of the two tracts of land.”
Roth v. Meyer, 2025 ND 116, 23 N.W.3d 131. · cites it 2× “While it is unclear if the district court entered the injunction through its own initiative, this Court stated: 17 “Section 32-05-04, N.D.C.C., authorizes a final injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation when damages are insufficient to afford adequate relief.”
Ronngren v. Beste, 483 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1992). · cites it 2× “” Section 32-05-04(3), N.D.C.C., authorizes an injunction if “restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.”
Roth v. Meyer, 2025 ND 116, 23 N.W.3d 131. · cites it 2× “” Jd While it is unclear if the district court entered the injunction through its own initiative, this Court stated: “Section 32-05-04, N.D.C.C., authorizes a final injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation when damages are insufficient to afford adequate relief.”
Burgard v. Burgard, 2013 ND 27. · cites it 2× “§ 32-05-03, “[p]reventive relief consists in prohibiting a party from doing that which ought not to be done” and “is granted by injunction, temporary or final.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 32-05-04(1): 2 cases
Magrinat v. Trinity Hosp., 540 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1995). “Magrinat requested final injunctive relief under Section 32-05-04, N.D.C.C. Relief under Section 32-06-02, N.”
Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330. “§ 32-05-03, “[preventive relief consists in prohibiting a party from doing that which ought not to be done” and “is granted by injunction, temporary or final.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 32-05-04(3): 1 case
Ronngren v. Beste, 483 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1992). “” Section 32-05-04(3), N.D.C.C., authorizes an injunction if “restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 32-05-04(4): 1 case
Biever, Drees & Nordell v. Coutts, 305 N.W.2d 33 (N.D. 1981). “” Section 32-05-04 provides, in part: “Except when otherwise provided by this chapter, a final injunction may be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the applicant: “1.”
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.