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.
11 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Village of Newport v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2024“Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, ‘without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the [adverse claimant], but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.’” Ebenhoh v. Hodgman, 642 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 2002) (quoting Village of Newport v. Taylor, 30 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Minn. 1948)). 2024“Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, ‘without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.’” 6 Ebenhoh v. Hodgman, 642 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 2002) (quoting Village of Newport v. Taylor, 30 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Minn. 1948)). | 7 | 9 |
Ebenhoh v. Hodgmangreen2 sentences2024“Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, ‘without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the [adverse claimant], but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.’” Ebenhoh v. Hodgman, 642 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 2002) (quoting Village of Newport v. Taylor, 30 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Minn. 1948)). 2024“Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, ‘without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.’” 6 Ebenhoh v. Hodgman, 642 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 2002) (quoting Village of Newport v. Taylor, 30 N.W.2d 588, 591 (Minn. 1948)). | 3 | 3 |
Lechner v. Adelmangreen2 sentences1987Lechner v. Adelman, 369 N.W.2d 331, 334 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. Aug. 29, 1985). 1987The evidence must be construed “without resort to any inference of presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Lechner v. Adelman, 369 N.W.2d 331, 334 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. Aug. 29, 1985) (quoting Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303 , 30 N.W.2d 588, 591 (1948)). | 1 | 2 |
Ganje v. Schulergreen1 sentence2017But this court construes evidence presented in support of adverse possession strictly, “without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Ebenhoh v. Hodgman, 642 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 2002) (quotation omitted). “[W]hether the findings of fact support a district court’s conclusions of law and judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Ganje, 659 N.W.2d at 266 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Engquist v. Wirtjesgreen2 sentences2002Engquist, 243 Minn. at 505 , 68 N.W.2d at 415 (citation omitted). 2002Engquist, 243 Minn. at 505 , 68 N.W.2d at 415 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Stanard v. Urbangreen1 sentence2002Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, “without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303 , 30 N.W.2d 588, 591 (1948); see also Stanard v. Urban, 453 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Minn.App.1990) (“The evidence must * * * amount to clear and positive proof before title by adverse possession will be granted.” (citation omitted)), review denied (Minn. June 15,1990). [T]he erection of a fence by an adjoining landowner has little significance o | 1 | 1 |
Rogers v. Mooregreen1 sentence2000“The elements necessary to establish adverse possession * * * require a showing that the property has been used in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive and hostile manner for 15 years.” Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 657 (Minn.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Weis v. Kozakgreen1 sentence2000In adverse possession cases, the evidence is to be strictly construed “without resort to any inference of presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Weis v. Kozak, 410 N.W.2d 903, 905 (Minn.App.1987) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beardsley v. Crane
green
2 sentences1968The evidence establishing a boundary by practical location, as we have consistently held since Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 546 , 54 N.W. 740, 742 , must be “clear, positive, and unequivocal.” We said in Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303 , 30 N.W. (2d) 588, 591 , with reference to practical location by adverse possession, that it may be established “only by clear and positive proof based on a strict construction of the evidence, without resort to any inference or presump *270 tion. in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Defenda 1968The evidence establishing a boundary by practical location, as we have consistently held since Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 546 , 54 N.W. 740, 742 , must be “clear, positive, and unequivocal.” We said in Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303 , 30 N.W. (2d) 588, 591 , with reference to practical location by adverse possession, that it may be established “only by clear and positive proof based on a strict construction of the evidence, without resort to any inference or presump *270 tion. in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Defenda | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Hoverson v. Hoverson
green
2 sentences1950The burden of proving the essential facts which create title by adverse possession rests upon the disseizor.” See, also, Hoverson v. Hoverson, 216 Minn. 228 , 12 N. W. (2d) 501 ; St. 1950The burden of proving the essential facts which create title by adverse possession rests upon the disseizor.” See, also, Hoverson v. Hoverson, 216 Minn. 228 , 12 N. W. (2d) 501 ; St. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.