30 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dozier v. Krmpotichgreen2 sentences1975However, as this court stated in Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , 35 N. W. 2d 696, 699 (1949): “* * * Where the claimant of an easement by prescription has shown open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use for the statutory period, inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient estate and under circumstances from which his knowledge and acquiescence may be inferred, the use will be presumed to be under claim of right and adverse, so as to place on the owner of the servient estate the burden of rebutting the presumption by evidence that the use was permissive.” (Italics su 1975However, as this court stated in Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , 35 N. W. 2d 696, 699 (1949): “* * * Where the claimant of an easement by prescription has shown open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use for the statutory period, inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient estate and under circumstances from which his knowledge and acquiescence may be inferred, the use will be presumed to be under claim of right and adverse, so as to place on the owner of the servient estate the burden of rebutting the presumption by evidence that the use was permissive.” (Italics su | 2 | 5 |
In Re the Welfare of D.L.R.D.green2 sentences2013“The party petitioning to terminate parental rights has the burden of rebutting this presumption.” Id. 2011“Under these circumstances, the parent has the burden of rebutting the presumption of palpable unfitness.” D.L.R.D., 656 N.W.2d at 250 . | 2 | 3 |
Hartman v. Blanding's Inc.green2 sentences1987Hartman v. Blanding’s, Inc., 288 Minn. 415, 421 , 181 N.W.2d 466, 469 (1970). 1987Hartman v. Blanding’s, Inc., 288 Minn. 415, 421 , 181 N.W.2d 466, 469 (1970). | 2 | 3 |
In the Matter of the WELFARE OF the CHILD OF R.D.L. and J.W., Parentsgreen2 sentences2016T.D., 731 N.W.2d at 554 . “[A] parent rebuts the presumption by introducing evidence that would justify a finding of fact that the parent is not palpably unfit, and whether the evidence satisfies the burden of production is determined on a case-by-case basis.” In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted). 2016To rebut the presumption, 4 “the parent needs to produce only enough evidence to support a finding that the parent is suitable to be entrusted with the care of the children.” R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d at 137 (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bottgreen2 sentences1997See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976) (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952)); State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , 254- 55, 194 N.W.2d 276, 280-81 (1972) (placing the burden of persuasion on defendant of proving insanity did not violate the defendants’ due process rights (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952))). 1997See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976) (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952)); State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , 254- 55, 194 N.W.2d 276, 280-81 (1972) (placing the burden of persuasion on defendant of proving insanity did not violate the defendants’ due process rights (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952))). | 2 | 2 |
Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currencygreen1 sentence2015See Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, 728 N.W.2d 510, 522 (Minn. 2007) (“A presumption is merely a procedural device for controlling the burden of going forward with the evidence, and it has no additional function other than the limited one of dictating 5 the decision where there is an entire lack of competent evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Gary E. Mitchell, John Doegreen1 sentence2015See Mitchell, 2015 WL 1401595, at *3 (rejecting essentially same argument). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Welfare of Chosagreen1 sentence2003In re Welfare of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn.1980); see also In re Klugman, 256 Minn. 113 , 118, 97 N.W.2d 425 , 428-29 (1959) (stating that “the presumption is that the parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his child, and the burden is upon him who asserts the contrary to prove it by satisfactory evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hursh v. Klugmangreen1 sentence2003In re Welfare of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn.1980); see also In re Klugman, 256 Minn. 113 , 118, 97 N.W.2d 425 , 428-29 (1959) (stating that “the presumption is that the parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his child, and the burden is upon him who asserts the contrary to prove it by satisfactory evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dependency of Klugmangreen1 sentence2003In re Welfare of Chosa, 290 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Minn.1980); see also In re Klugman, 256 Minn. 113 , 118, 97 N.W.2d 425 , 428-29 (1959) (stating that “the presumption is that the parent is a fit and suitable person to be entrusted with the care of his child, and the burden is upon him who asserts the contrary to prove it by satisfactory evidence.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1999See Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 ; State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 910 (Minn.1996) (recognizing that with respect to constitutional errors in a criminal trial, the state bears the burden of showing the error was harmless); State v. Sanders, 376 N.W.2d 196, 205 (Minn.1985) (recognizing that with respect to “presumptively prejudicial” errors, the state bears the burden of rebutting the presumption). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1999See Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 ; State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 910 (Minn.1996) (recognizing that with respect to constitutional errors in a criminal trial, the state bears the burden of showing the error was harmless); State v. Sanders, 376 N.W.2d 196, 205 (Minn.1985) (recognizing that with respect to “presumptively prejudicial” errors, the state bears the burden of rebutting the presumption). 1999See Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 ; State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 910 (Minn.1996) (recognizing that with respect to constitutional errors in a criminal trial, the state bears the burden of showing the error was harmless); State v. Sanders, 376 N.W.2d 196, 205 (Minn.1985) (recognizing that with respect to “presumptively prejudicial” errors, the state bears the burden of rebutting the presumption). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sandersgreen1 sentence1999See Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 ; State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 910 (Minn.1996) (recognizing that with respect to constitutional errors in a criminal trial, the state bears the burden of showing the error was harmless); State v. Sanders, 376 N.W.2d 196, 205 (Minn.1985) (recognizing that with respect to “presumptively prejudicial” errors, the state bears the burden of rebutting the presumption). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mytychgreen2 sentences1997See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976) (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952)); State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , 254- 55, 194 N.W.2d 276, 280-81 (1972) (placing the burden of persuasion on defendant of proving insanity did not violate the defendants’ due process rights (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952))). 1997See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976) (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952)); State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , 254- 55, 194 N.W.2d 276, 280-81 (1972) (placing the burden of persuasion on defendant of proving insanity did not violate the defendants’ due process rights (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952))). | 1 | 1 |
Leland v. Oregongreen2 sentences1997See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976) (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952)); State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , 254- 55, 194 N.W.2d 276, 280-81 (1972) (placing the burden of persuasion on defendant of proving insanity did not violate the defendants’ due process rights (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952))). 1997See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976) (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952)); State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , 254- 55, 194 N.W.2d 276, 280-81 (1972) (placing the burden of persuasion on defendant of proving insanity did not violate the defendants’ due process rights (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952))). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence1996Id. at 1384. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jensengreen2 sentences1976State v. Jensen, 278 Minn. 212, 217 , 153 N. W. 2d 339, 342 (1967); *115 State ex rel. 1976State v. Jensen, 278 Minn. 212, 217 , 153 N. W. 2d 339, 342 (1967); *115 State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Merrick v. Schleuder
green
2 sentences1970The rule was laid down in Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228, 230 , 228 N. W. 755, 756 , that— <<* * * ‘where the claimant [of an easement by prescription] has shown an open, visible, continuous and unmolested use’ for the required period inconsistent with the owner’s rights and under circumstances from which may be inferred his knowledge and acquiescence, the use will be presumed to be under claim of right and adverse so as to place upon the owner [of the servient estate] the burden of rebutting this presumption by showing that the use was permissive.” The court held further ( 179 Minn. 229 1970The rule was laid down in Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228, 230 , 228 N. W. 755, 756 , that— <<* * * ‘where the claimant [of an easement by prescription] has shown an open, visible, continuous and unmolested use’ for the required period inconsistent with the owner’s rights and under circumstances from which may be inferred his knowledge and acquiescence, the use will be presumed to be under claim of right and adverse so as to place upon the owner [of the servient estate] the burden of rebutting this presumption by showing that the use was permissive.” The court held further ( 179 Minn. 229 | 4 | 1936–1970 |
Stapf v. Wobbrock
green
2 sentences1970Schmidt v. Koecher, 196 Minn. 178 , 265 N. W. 347 ; Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , 228 N. W. 755 ; Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358 , 214 N. W. 49 ; Annotation, 170 A. L. 1970Schmidt v. Koecher, 196 Minn. 178 , 265 N. W. 347 ; Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , 228 N. W. 755 ; Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358 , 214 N. W. 49 ; Annotation, 170 A. L. | 3 | 1949–1970 |
Swan v. Munch
green
2 sentences1949Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 500 , 67 N.W. 1022 , 35 L.R.A. 743 , 60 A.S.R. 491 ; Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358 , 214 N.W. 49 , and cases there cited." In Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503 , 507 , 35 N.W.2d 696 , 699 , we stated: "* * * It must be apparent, therefore, that 'acquiescence' and 'permission' as used in this connection are not synonymous. 'Acquiescence,' *Page 358 regardless of what it might mean otherwise, means, when used in this connection, passive conduct on the part of the owner of the servient estate consisting of failure on his part to assert his paramount rights against the 1949Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 500 , 67 N.W. 1022 , 35 L.R.A. 743 , 60 A.S.R. 491 ; Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358 , 214 N.W. 49 , and cases there cited." In Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503 , 507 , 35 N.W.2d 696 , 699 , we stated: "* * * It must be apparent, therefore, that 'acquiescence' and 'permission' as used in this connection are not synonymous. 'Acquiescence,' *Page 358 regardless of what it might mean otherwise, means, when used in this connection, passive conduct on the part of the owner of the servient estate consisting of failure on his part to assert his paramount rights against the | 3 | 1930–1949 |
Schmidt v. Koecher
green
2 sentences1970Schmidt v. Koecher, 196 Minn. 178 , 265 N. W. 347 ; Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , 228 N. W. 755 ; Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358 , 214 N. W. 49 ; Annotation, 170 A. L. 1949Schmidt v. Koecher, 196 Minn. 178 , 265 N. W. 347 ; Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , 228 N. W. 755 ; Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358 , 214 N. W. 49 ; Annotation, 170 A. L. | 2 | 1949–1970 |
In Re the Welfare of the Child of D.L.D.
green
1 sentence2016A parent is presumed to be palpably unfit “upon a showing that the parent’s parental rights to one or more other children were involuntarily terminated.” Id. “[T]he parent has the burden of rebutting the presumption of palpable unfitness.” In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D., 771 N.W.2d 538 , 543–44 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re the Welfare of the Child of T.D.
green
1 sentence2016T.D., 731 N.W.2d at 554 . “[A] parent rebuts the presumption by introducing evidence that would justify a finding of fact that the parent is not palpably unfit, and whether the evidence satisfies the burden of production is determined on a case-by-case basis.” In re Welfare of Child of R.D.L., 853 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Williams v. Curtis
green
1 sentence2013In support of his argument that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, appellant primarily relies upon our decision in Williams v. Curtis, 501 N.W.2d 653 (Minn.App.1993), review denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 1993). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Higgin
green
2 sentences1976He relies upon State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , 99 N. W. 2d 902 (1959), in which we disapproved instructing the jury that after finding the presence of one element of an offense, another element could be presumed to be present. 1976He relies upon State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46 , 99 N. W. 2d 902 (1959), in which we disapproved instructing the jury that after finding the presence of one element of an offense, another element could be presumed to be present. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Alstad v. Boyer
green
2 sentences1974Hartman v. Blanding’s Inc. 288 Minn. 415 , 181 N. W. 2d 466 (1970); Alstad v. Boyer, 228 Minn. 307 , 37 N. W. 2d 372 (1949). 1974Hartman v. Blanding’s Inc. 288 Minn. 415 , 181 N. W. 2d 466 (1970); Alstad v. Boyer, 228 Minn. 307 , 37 N. W. 2d 372 (1949). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Thomas W. Whalem v. United States
green
1 sentence1974Standards for Criminal Justice, The Function of the Trial Judge, § 1.1(a) (Approved Draft, 1972); Whalem v. United States, 120 App.D.C. 331 , 346 F.2d 812, 818 , certiorari denied, 382 U.S. 862 , 86 S.Ct. 124 , 15 L.Ed.2d 100 (1965). [3] Minn.St. 611.025 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, in every criminal proceeding, a person is presumed to be responsible for his acts and the burden of rebutting such presumption is upon him." [1] It should be noted that Minn.St. 632.06 facially provides that if this court reverses a judgment in a criminal case, "it shall either direct a new trial | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Vega v. National Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence1974Standards for Criminal Justice, The Function of the Trial Judge, § 1.1(a) (Approved Draft, 1972); Whalem v. United States, 120 App.D.C. 331 , 346 F.2d 812, 818 , certiorari denied, 382 U.S. 862 , 86 S.Ct. 124 , 15 L.Ed.2d 100 (1965). [3] Minn.St. 611.025 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, in every criminal proceeding, a person is presumed to be responsible for his acts and the burden of rebutting such presumption is upon him." [1] It should be noted that Minn.St. 632.06 facially provides that if this court reverses a judgment in a criminal case, "it shall either direct a new trial | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Naporra v. Weckwerth
green
2 sentences1972Naporra v. Weckwerth, 178 Minn. 203 , 226 N. W. 569 , 65 A. L. 1972Naporra v. Weckwerth, 178 Minn. 203 , 226 N. W. 569 , 65 A. L. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences1972Brown v. State, 292 Minn. 174 , 193 N. W. 2d 613 (1972). 1972Brown v. State, 292 Minn. 174 , 193 N. W. 2d 613 (1972). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Mitchell v. Bain green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.