My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ordinance 661 & 662 - FAILED BY BALLOT 11/07/2000
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
Charter and Amendments
>
Amendments/By Ordinance
>
Ordinance 661 & 662 - FAILED BY BALLOT 11/07/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2020 11:37:50 AM
Creation date
2/4/2020 10:27:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Charter Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
"A temporary injunction may be granted if by affidavit, deposition testimony, or <br />oral testimony in court, it appears that sufficient grounds exist therefor." Minn. <br />R.Civ.P. 65.02 (b). The proper analysis for determining whether to grant a temporary <br />injunction is found in Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Minn. 264, 137 N.W.2d 314, <br />321-322 (Minn. 1965). Five factors are to be considered by the Court: <br />1. The nature and background of the relationship between the parties; <br />2. The harm to be suffered by plaintiff if the temporary injunctive relief is <br />denied as compared to the harm inflicted on defendant if the Injunction <br />issues pending trial; <br />3. The likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits; <br />4. The public policy/public interest; and <br />5. The administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision and <br />enforcement of the temporary injunction. <br />Id. <br />1. The nature of the relationship between the parties does support a tem orar <br />injunction. <br />"A temporary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy ... [which] purpose <br />is to preserve the status quo until adjudication of the case on its merits." Miller v. <br />Folev, 317 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982). <br />Plaintiffs in this action are residents of the City of Mounds View and also are <br />members of the Mounds View Charter Commission. Plaintiffs have participated in the <br />governmental process in Mounds View, as members of the Charter Commission, and <br />have performed their duties accordingly to case and statutory law. Defendant is the <br />City of Mounds View, by and through Mayor Dan Coughlin and the members of the City <br />Council. Under Minn. Stat. Section 410.12 Subd. 5, the City Council may propose <br />amendments to a home rule charter to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance <br />proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the Charter Commission, who <br />shall review the proposed amendment within 60 days thereafter. Before the expiration <br />Memorandum Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.