Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

82-1748 (1983)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 82-1748 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 12, 1983
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 703 F.2d 328 Glenn L. McDONNELL, Appellee, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance, Farmers New World Life Insurance Company and Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Appellants. No. 82-1748. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted March 15, 1983. Decided April 12, 1983. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota; Diana E. Murphy, U.S.D.C., Judge. Dorsey & Whitney, Roger J. Magnuson, C
More

703 F.2d 328

Glenn L. McDONNELL, Appellee,
v.
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire
Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance, Farmers
New World Life Insurance Company and
Illinois Farmers Insurance
Company, Appellants.

No. 82-1748.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 1983.
Decided April 12, 1983.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota; Diana E. Murphy, U.S.D.C., Judge.

Dorsey & Whitney, Roger J. Magnuson, Charles L. Sweeris, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

William T. Egan, Scott K. Goldsmith, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, and ROBERTS,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

This matter comes before the court on review of the grant of a preliminary injunction issued by the district court under the guidelines of Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir.1981). On appeal defendants urge that plaintiff has not shown it will probably succeed on the merits. We stated in Dataphase:

2

It follows that the court ordinarily is not required at an early stage to draw the fine line between a mathematical probability and a substantial possibility of success. This endeavor may, of course, be necessary in some circumstances when the balance of equities may come to require a more careful evaluation of the merits. But where the balance of other factors tips decidedly toward movant a preliminary injunction may issue if movant has raised questions so serious and difficult as to call for more deliberate investigation.

4

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the above standard in granting the preliminary injunction.

5

We do, however, request the district court to expedite an early determination on the merits of the legal issue involved as to the applicability of the Minnesota Franchise Act, Minn.Stat.Ann. Sec. 80C.01 to -.22 (West Supp.1983), asserted by the plaintiff as governing the relationship of the parties.

6

The order granting the preliminary injunction is affirmed.

*

Ross T. Roberts, District Judge, Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer