Agenda Packets - 1999/04/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mar-31-99 01:09pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-098 P.06/08 F-823 c09819g9 Court of Appeals Page 3 of 3 expended in administrauve hearings,even where the agency may be exceeding its jurisdiction, do not amount to irreparable injury justifying intervention by a court of equity. * * * En the absence of a showing of irreparable injury, we must hold that,in the interest of orderly and uninterrupted administrative action an injunction should not issue to interfere with the commission's administrative proceedings. Id. at 7, 60 N.W.2d at 21-22. Like the employer in Thomas, City showed no injury other than "[p]roblematical damages based on speculation" when it argued that taxpayers' funds might be spent unnecessarily if eventually the court were to decide against extending the runway.See also Sheehan v. Hennepin County District Court, 253 Minn 462,93 N.W.2d 1 (1958) (upholding a writ of prohibition to stop the court issuing a temporary order restraining the commissioner of insurance from proceeding against an insurance company). The mere fact that a party might be saved the time and expense of defending himself at an administrative proceeding would not be sufficient to justify equitable relief by means of injunction 's * *. * * * The temporary restraining order issued by the court below prevented relator [commissioner of insurance] from carrying out his administrative duties. The statute having made it plain that the exercise of such power by the court at the time was unauthorized,it becomes manifest that the remedy of appeal was and is plainly inadequate and the writ should not be denied. !d. at 467-68, 93 N.W.2d at 5-6. Both Thomas and Sheehan solidly hold that an entity may not enjoin commissions from their legitimate activities because the expense the entity incurs as a result of those activities could prove unnecessary it'the activities are subsequently disallowed by a court. The district court's finding that City would experience "irreparable harm" if MC were allowed to consider MAC's recommendation that the runway be extended is erroneous as a matter of law, and absent a showing of irreparable harm,the injunction interfering with the proceedings of MC and MAC was an abuse of discretion. Moreover, even if City had met the threshhold showing of irreparable harm, it did not make an adequate showing on the factors a court is to consider in granting injunctive relief.Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,272 Minn. 264,274-75, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-22 (1965), enumerates the factors: (1) the parties'relationship prior to the dispute; (2) the weight of the irreparable harm alleged by the party seeking the injunction compared to the weight of the harm suffered by the other party if the injunction is granted; (3)the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will prevail on the merits; (4)public policy considerations; and (5) administrative burden on the court. 1.Prior Relationship of the Parties City and MAC were in litigation concerning Airport's development during the 1980s. That litigation culminated in a July 1986 stipulation and court order that the runway be extended to 4,000 feet. The district court's finding on the parties'prior relationship implies that the 1986 order permanently restricts the length of the runway and prohibits MAC and MC from further planning_ The 1986 order, however,provided that Airport was to be developed "consistent with requirements of state law and the Metropolitan Development Guide, as of the date of this Agreement, as a'minor hup://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/coakurrent/c0981989.hunl 3/31/99