§Why CasetextPricing

New Grange, Inc. et al v. Melting Pot Restaurants, Inc., The

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

15 Cited authorities

  1. Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.

    640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981)   Cited 2,645 times
    Holding that issuance of a preliminary injunction depends upon a "flexible" consideration of the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; balancing this harm with any injury an injunction would inflict on other interested parties; the probability that the moving party would succeed on the merits; and the effect on the public interest

  2. Watkins Inc. v. Lewis

    346 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2003)   Cited 569 times
    Holding a preliminary injunction is inappropriate when a plaintiff has "an adequate remedy at law" and "[f]ailure to show irreparable harm is an independently sufficient ground upon which to deny a preliminary injunction."

  3. Modern Computer Systems v. Modern Banking

    871 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1989)   Cited 240 times
    Holding that Minnesota policy in favor of enforcing parties' agreements outweighed Minnesota policy of offering franchisees remedies greater than those available at common law

  4. Lopez v. Heckler

    713 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 281 times
    Holding that all a claimant must do to satisfy the presentment requirement is to “specifically present the claim that his benefits should not be terminated”

  5. Sanborn Manufacturing Co. v. Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co.

    997 F.2d 484 (8th Cir. 1993)   Cited 182 times
    Affirming the district court's determination that the balance of harms weighed in favor of denying injunctive relief

  6. Adam-Mellang v. Apartment Search, Inc.

    96 F.3d 297 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that "harm that had already occurred [can] be remedied through damages"

  7. Parkhill v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    174 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Minn. 2000)   Cited 100 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that a claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is subject to a six-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.05

  8. Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade

    878 F. Supp. 1224 (N.D. Iowa 1995)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that despite employee's right to work, the balance of harms weighed in the former employer's favor to enjoin an employee from violating a non-competition clause

  9. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner v. Hovey

    726 F.2d 1286 (8th Cir. 1984)   Cited 91 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preliminary injunctive relief is inappropriate

  10. Morrison v. Work

    266 U.S. 481 (1925)   Cited 92 times
    Stating that a mandatory injunction may be granted “in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion”

  11. Section 80C.01 - DEFINITIONS

    Minn. Stat. § 80C.01   Cited 55 times

    Subdivision 1.Scope. As used in sections 80C.01 to 80C.22, the terms defined in this section have the meanings here given them. Subd. 2.Advertisement. "Advertisement" means any written or printed communication or any communication by recorded telephone message, radio, television, picture or similar means published in connection with a sale of, or offer to sell, any franchise. Subd. 3.Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of commerce. Subd. 4.Franchise. (a) "Franchise" means (1) a contract

  12. Section 80C.14 - UNFAIR PRACTICES

    Minn. Stat. § 80C.14   Cited 39 times

    Subdivision 1.Prohibition. No person, whether by means of a term or condition of a franchise or otherwise, shall engage in any unfair or inequitable practice in contravention of such rules as the commissioner may adopt defining as to franchises the words "unfair and inequitable." For the purpose of rules defining the words "unfair and inequitable," the commissioner may specifically recognize classifications of franchises including but not limited to the classifications of motor vehicle fuel franchises