A Secure Handle on the Requirement of a Bond for a Preliminary Injunction

While some Minnesota courts have disregarded the bond requirement entirely, they have required that certain circumstances be present, such as a strong likelihood of success on the merits and the absence of any substantial harm to the nonmoving party even if the injunction is erroneously granted.61 U...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFranchise law journal Vol. 31; no. 1; pp. 15 - 20
Main Author Ginsburg, Elliot R.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago American Bar Association Forum on Franchising 22.06.2011
American Bar Association
Subjects
Attorneys
Bail bonds
Costs
Court costs
Court decisions
Defendants
Financial bonds
Franchise agreements
Franchisees
Franchises
Injunctions
Laws, regulations and rules
Legal fees
Plaintiffs
Preliminary injunctions
Restaurants
Restraining orders
Service marks
State court decisions
Success
Trademarks
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:While some Minnesota courts have disregarded the bond requirement entirely, they have required that certain circumstances be present, such as a strong likelihood of success on the merits and the absence of any substantial harm to the nonmoving party even if the injunction is erroneously granted.61 Under Minnesota Statutes § 80C.14, subdivision 1, however, such circumstances may not have to be present for a court to waive the bond requirement. [...] franchise lawyers have to look not only at the franchise agreement and case law in order to determine whether a bond is required, but also to any applicable state franchise law and other applicable statutes.62 This potential conflict between state franchise laws and Rule 65(c) raises the prospect of the Erie doctrine in diversity cases in federal court.
ISSN:8756-7962
2163-2154