Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Brodellgreen2 sentences2024See Brown v. Brodell, 2008 ND 183, ¶¶ 12-16 , 756 N.W.2d 779 (holding the doctrine of acquiescence did not apply when the parties testified they did not recognize the fence as the boundary line between the parties’ properties and understood the plot lines in the land survey constituted the boundary lines). [¶35] We conclude the district court clearly erred in finding the parties mutually acquiesced that County Road 34 was the boundary line between the respective properties. 2024See Brown v. Brodell, 2008 ND 183, ¶¶ 12-16 , 756 N.W.2d 779 (holding the doctrine of acquiescence did not apply when the parties testified they did not recognize the fence as the boundary line between the parties’ properties and understood the plot lines in the land survey constituted the boundary lines). [¶35] We conclude the district court clearly erred in finding the parties mutually acquiesced that County Road 34 was the boundary line between the respective properties. | 3 | 7 |
Sauter v. Millergreen2 sentences2020Boundary by acquiescence “allows a property owner to acquire neighboring property due to an honest mistake over the location of the boundary line.” Sauter, 2018 ND 57, ¶ 10 (quoting Brown v. Brodell, 2008 ND 183, ¶ 9 , 756 N.W.2d 779 ). [¶11] “To establish a new boundary line by the doctrine of acquiescence, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that both parties recognized the line as a boundary, and not a mere barrier, for at least 20 years prior to the litigation.” Sauter, 2018 ND 57, ¶ 10 (quoting Brown, 2008 ND 183, ¶ 9 ). 2020Boundary by acquiescence “allows a property owner to acquire neighboring property due to an honest mistake over the location of the boundary line.” Sauter, 2018 ND 57, ¶ 10 (quoting Brown v. Brodell, 2008 ND 183, ¶ 9 , 756 N.W.2d 779 ). [¶11] “To establish a new boundary line by the doctrine of acquiescence, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that both parties recognized the line as a boundary, and not a mere barrier, for at least 20 years prior to the litigation.” Sauter, 2018 ND 57, ¶ 10 (quoting Brown, 2008 ND 183, ¶ 9 ). | 2 | 3 |
Production Credit Ass'n of Mandan v. Terra Vallee, Inc.green2 sentences2006B [¶ 11] Relying on James v. Griffin, 2001 ND 90 , 626 N.W.2d 704 , Manz v. Bohara, 367 N.W.2d 743 (N.D.1985), and Production Credit Ass’n v. Terra Vallee, Inc., 303 N.W.2d 79 (N.D.1981), the Fisch-ers also argue they were entitled to an easement by prescription under the doctrine of acquiescence. 2002Because acquiescence evolved from and is a supplement to the doctrine of adverse possession, see Production Credit Ass’n v. Terra Vallee, Inc., 303 N.W.2d 79, 83-84 (N.D.1981), we conclude the part of the railroad right of way at issue in this case is not subject to the doctrine of acquiescence. | 1 | 4 |
Bernier v. Preckelgreen2 sentences2008Bernier v. Preckel, 60 N.D. 549, 557 , 236 N.W. 243, 247 (1931). 2008Bernier v. Preckel, 60 N.D. 549, 557 , 236 N.W. 243, 247 (1931). | 1 | 3 |
James v. Griffingreen2 sentences2020See James v. Griffin, 2001 ND 90, ¶ 10 , 626 N.W.2d 704 . ‘The doctrine of acquiescence allows a person to acquire property when occupying part of a neighbor’s land due to an honest mistake about the location of the true boundary, because the adverse intent requirement of the related doctrine of adverse possession could not be met.’ Fischer v. Berger, 2006 ND 48, ¶ 12 , 4 710 N.W.2d 886 . ‘To establish a new boundary line by the doctrine of acquiescence, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that both parties recognized the line as a boundary, and not a mere barrier, for at least 2 2020See James v. Griffin, 2001 ND 90, ¶ 10 , 626 N.W.2d 704 . ‘The doctrine of acquiescence allows a person to acquire property when occupying part of a neighbor’s land due to an honest mistake about the location of the true boundary, because the adverse intent requirement of the related doctrine of adverse possession could not be met.’ Fischer v. Berger, 2006 ND 48, ¶ 12 , 4 710 N.W.2d 886 . ‘To establish a new boundary line by the doctrine of acquiescence, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that both parties recognized the line as a boundary, and not a mere barrier, for at least 2 | 1 | 2 |
McCarvel v. Perhusgreen1 sentence2022III [¶5] Kubik argues the original fence line was the established boundary between his property and the Hauck/Sickler property and the district court erred by not quieting title in his favor under the doctrine of acquiescence. [¶6] “Boundary by acquiescence allows a property owner to acquire neighboring property due to an honest mistake over the location of the boundary line.” McCarvel, 2020 ND 267, ¶ 10 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Fischer v. Bergergreen2 sentences2020See James v. Griffin, 2001 ND 90, ¶ 10 , 626 N.W.2d 704 . ‘The doctrine of acquiescence allows a person to acquire property when occupying part of a neighbor’s land due to an honest mistake about the location of the true boundary, because the adverse intent requirement of the related doctrine of adverse possession could not be met.’ Fischer v. Berger, 2006 ND 48, ¶ 12 , 4 710 N.W.2d 886 . ‘To establish a new boundary line by the doctrine of acquiescence, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that both parties recognized the line as a boundary, and not a mere barrier, for at least 2 2020See James v. Griffin, 2001 ND 90, ¶ 10 , 626 N.W.2d 704 . ‘The doctrine of acquiescence allows a person to acquire property when occupying part of a neighbor’s land due to an honest mistake about the location of the true boundary, because the adverse intent requirement of the related doctrine of adverse possession could not be met.’ Fischer v. Berger, 2006 ND 48, ¶ 12 , 4 710 N.W.2d 886 . ‘To establish a new boundary line by the doctrine of acquiescence, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that both parties recognized the line as a boundary, and not a mere barrier, for at least 2 | 1 | 1 |
Knutson v. Jensengreen1 sentence2008Knutson v. Jensen, 440 N.W.2d 260, 262 (N.D.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Haas v. Bursingergreen2 sentences2001See Haas v. Bursinger, 470 N.W.2d 222, 223 (N.D.1991). 2001See Haas v. Bursinger, 470 N.W.2d 222, 223 (N.D.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Mid-America Steel, Inc. v. Bjonegreen1 sentence1997See Mid-America Steel, Inc. v. Bjone, 414 N.W.2d 591, 596 (N.D.1987) (last sentence of N.D.C.C. § 35-27-07 shows the legislature could have adopted an acquiescence rule for contract vendors as it did for lessors, but did not do so). | 1 | 1 |
Drake v. Claargreen1 sentence1985See, e.g., Drake v. Claar, 339 N.W.2d 844, 847 (Iowa App.1983) [“Adjoining landowners may establish a boundary line by mutually acquiescing in a dividing line definitely marked by a fence or some other man-ner_”]; Glover v. Graham, 459 A.2d 1080 , 1084 n. 8 (Me.1983) [Obtaining title to property by the doctrine of acquiescence requires, in part, “possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences or the like.”]; Fuoco v. Williams, 18 Utah 2d 282 , 421 P.2d 944 (1966) [A ditch, constantly subject to shifting or obliteration by erosion, weeds or cleaning and which was originally | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nowling v. BNSF RAILWAY
green
2 sentences2004Nowling, 2002 ND 104, ¶ 14 , 646 N.W.2d 719 . [¶ 11] Here, the trial court determined “[i]t is clearly evident that the [Tiberts’] complaint presents two causes of action-one seeking relief by way of adverse possession, and one seeking relief by way Of the acquiescence doctrine.” Indeed, Count I, paragraph IV, of the Tiberts’ complaint states, “the [Tiberts] are the owners of the real property ... by adverse possession,” and Count II, paragraph IX, states, “[Min-to Grain] and its predecessors [sic] silence amounts to acquiescence in placing the boundary line along ... 2004Nowling, 2002 ND 104, ¶ 14 , 646 N.W.2d 719 . [¶ 11] Here, the trial court determined “[i]t is clearly evident that the [Tiberts’] complaint presents two causes of action-one seeking relief by way of adverse possession, and one seeking relief by way Of the acquiescence doctrine.” Indeed, Count I, paragraph IV, of the Tiberts’ complaint states, “the [Tiberts] are the owners of the real property ... by adverse possession,” and Count II, paragraph IX, states, “[Min-to Grain] and its predecessors [sic] silence amounts to acquiescence in placing the boundary line along ... | 2 | 2004–2007 |
Trautman v. Ahlert
green
2 sentences1985The Boharas point to the following language in Trautman, 147 N.W.2d at 413 , which they argue applies to this case: “We are unable to find from the' record how long the defendant has possessed and occupied any particular amount of plaintiffs land.” In Trautman the above quoted language was utilized by this Court in holding that the doctrine of acquiescence did not apply to a road or trail which ran near the defendant’s north boundary, as there was no evidence that the parties had acquiesced in the road or trail as being the boundary line between their adjoining properties. 1985Trautman, 147 N.W.2d at 413 . | 2 | 1981–1985 |
Manz v. Bohara
green
1 sentence2006B [¶ 11] Relying on James v. Griffin, 2001 ND 90 , 626 N.W.2d 704 , Manz v. Bohara, 367 N.W.2d 743 (N.D.1985), and Production Credit Ass’n v. Terra Vallee, Inc., 303 N.W.2d 79 (N.D.1981), the Fisch-ers also argue they were entitled to an easement by prescription under the doctrine of acquiescence. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Fuoco v. Williams
green
2 sentences1985See, e.g., Drake v. Claar, 339 N.W.2d 844, 847 (Iowa App.1983) [“Adjoining landowners may establish a boundary line by mutually acquiescing in a dividing line definitely marked by a fence or some other man-ner_”]; Glover v. Graham, 459 A.2d 1080 , 1084 n. 8 (Me.1983) [Obtaining title to property by the doctrine of acquiescence requires, in part, “possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences or the like.”]; Fuoco v. Williams, 18 Utah 2d 282 , 421 P.2d 944 (1966) [A ditch, constantly subject to shifting or obliteration by erosion, weeds or cleaning and which was originally 1985See, e.g., Drake v. Claar, 339 N.W.2d 844, 847 (Iowa App.1983) [“Adjoining landowners may establish a boundary line by mutually acquiescing in a dividing line definitely marked by a fence or some other man-ner_”]; Glover v. Graham, 459 A.2d 1080 , 1084 n. 8 (Me.1983) [Obtaining title to property by the doctrine of acquiescence requires, in part, “possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences or the like.”]; Fuoco v. Williams, 18 Utah 2d 282 , 421 P.2d 944 (1966) [A ditch, constantly subject to shifting or obliteration by erosion, weeds or cleaning and which was originally | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Glover v. Graham
green
1 sentence1985See, e.g., Drake v. Claar, 339 N.W.2d 844, 847 (Iowa App.1983) [“Adjoining landowners may establish a boundary line by mutually acquiescing in a dividing line definitely marked by a fence or some other man-ner_”]; Glover v. Graham, 459 A.2d 1080 , 1084 n. 8 (Me.1983) [Obtaining title to property by the doctrine of acquiescence requires, in part, “possession up to a visible line marked clearly by monuments, fences or the like.”]; Fuoco v. Williams, 18 Utah 2d 282 , 421 P.2d 944 (1966) [A ditch, constantly subject to shifting or obliteration by erosion, weeds or cleaning and which was originally | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.