Legal Opinion
Bio-Line Inc. v. Wilfley
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 9, 1985No. C5-85-112PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the entry of a default judgment and the dismissal of their counterclaim. We stayed all further proceedings in the trial court pending decision on this petition. We grant the writ.
FACTS
Bio-Line, Inc. manufactures and distributes consumer products containing “specially formulated catalyst water.” Ellen and Harold Wilfley owned 45 percent of the company’s stock and served as corporate officers and directors. In September 1983, the Wilfleys and Bio-Line executed an agreement providing for the Wilfleys’ retirement and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Firoved v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- Evans v. BlesiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Liptak v. State Ex Rel. City of New HopeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1983
- Reichert v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Beal v. ReinertsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Aberle v. RinghausenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
- Fette v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Bio-Line, Inc. v. WilfleyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Jadwin v. City of DaytonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Aberle v. RinghausenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.