10 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Production Credit Ass'n of Mandan v. Terra Vallee, Inc.green2 sentences2002Because 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. 2001Production Credit Association v. Terra Vallee, Inc., 303 N.W.2d 79, 83-84 (N.D.1981). | 2 | 2 |
Sickler v. Popegreen2 sentences1999See Sickler v. Pope, 326 N.W.2d 86, 91 (N.D.1982); see also Tavis v. Higgins, 157 N.W.2d 718, 719 (N.D.1968). 1999See Sickler v. Pope , 326 N.W.2d 86, 91 (N.D. 1982); see also Tavis v. Higgins , 157 N.W.2d 718, 719 (N.D. 1968). | 2 | 2 |
Tavis v. Higginsgreen2 sentences1999See Sickler v. Pope, 326 N.W.2d 86, 91 (N.D.1982); see also Tavis v. Higgins, 157 N.W.2d 718, 719 (N.D.1968). 1999See Sickler v. Pope , 326 N.W.2d 86, 91 (N.D. 1982); see also Tavis v. Higgins , 157 N.W.2d 718, 719 (N.D. 1968). | 2 | 2 |
Torgerson v. Rosegreen1 sentence2015See Benson v. Taralseth, 382 N.W.2d 649, 652-53 (N.D.1986) (applying the elements of adverse possession for a claim under N.D.C.C. 47-06-03); Torgerson , at 83-84 (applying elements of adverse possession for claim under N.D.C.C. 28-01-08); Simons v. Tancre, 321 N.W.2d 495, 498-99 (N.D.1982) (holding a claimant must establish all of the elements of an adverse possession claim even if the statutory requirements of N.D.C.C. 28-01-08 are met); Martin v. Rippel, 152 N.W.2d 332, 338 (N.D.1967) (applying elements of adverse possession for claim under N.D.C.C. 28-01-10). [¶ 16] In proving all the elem | 1 | 1 |
Benson v. Taralsethgreen1 sentence2015See Benson v. Taralseth, 382 N.W.2d 649, 652-53 (N.D.1986) (applying the elements of adverse possession for a claim under N.D.C.C. 47-06-03); Torgerson , at 83-84 (applying elements of adverse possession for claim under N.D.C.C. 28-01-08); Simons v. Tancre, 321 N.W.2d 495, 498-99 (N.D.1982) (holding a claimant must establish all of the elements of an adverse possession claim even if the statutory requirements of N.D.C.C. 28-01-08 are met); Martin v. Rippel, 152 N.W.2d 332, 338 (N.D.1967) (applying elements of adverse possession for claim under N.D.C.C. 28-01-10). [¶ 16] In proving all the elem | 1 | 1 |
Simons v. Tancregreen1 sentence2015See Benson v. Taralseth, 382 N.W.2d 649, 652-53 (N.D.1986) (applying the elements of adverse possession for a claim under N.D.C.C. 47-06-03); Torgerson , at 83-84 (applying elements of adverse possession for claim under N.D.C.C. 28-01-08); Simons v. Tancre, 321 N.W.2d 495, 498-99 (N.D.1982) (holding a claimant must establish all of the elements of an adverse possession claim even if the statutory requirements of N.D.C.C. 28-01-08 are met); Martin v. Rippel, 152 N.W.2d 332, 338 (N.D.1967) (applying elements of adverse possession for claim under N.D.C.C. 28-01-10). [¶ 16] In proving all the elem | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Rippelgreen1 sentence2015See Benson v. Taralseth, 382 N.W.2d 649, 652-53 (N.D.1986) (applying the elements of adverse possession for a claim under N.D.C.C. 47-06-03); Torgerson , at 83-84 (applying elements of adverse possession for claim under N.D.C.C. 28-01-08); Simons v. Tancre, 321 N.W.2d 495, 498-99 (N.D.1982) (holding a claimant must establish all of the elements of an adverse possession claim even if the statutory requirements of N.D.C.C. 28-01-08 are met); Martin v. Rippel, 152 N.W.2d 332, 338 (N.D.1967) (applying elements of adverse possession for claim under N.D.C.C. 28-01-10). [¶ 16] In proving all the elem | 1 | 1 |
Grandin v. Gardinergreen1 sentence2015See Grandin v. Gardiner, 63 N.W.2d 128, 133 (N.D.1954). | 1 | 1 |
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 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Judith M. Woodward v. Thomas J. Valvoda
green
2 sentences2025The claimant’s subjective beliefs and intent are not relevant . . . .” (citation omitted)); Woodward v. Valvoda, 2021 WY 5, ¶ 27 , 478 P.3d 1189 (“Because the notice requirement is a fundamental part of an adverse possession claim, a claimant cannot establish a prima facie case by relying solely on his testimony as to his subjective hostile intent. 2025The claimant’s subjective beliefs and intent are not relevant . . . .” (citation omitted)); Woodward v. Valvoda, 2021 WY 5, ¶ 27 , 478 P.3d 1189 (“Because the notice requirement is a fundamental part of an adverse possession claim, a claimant cannot establish a prima facie case by relying solely on his testimony as to his subjective hostile intent. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Winnie Development, LLLP v. Reveling
green
1 sentence2019The court therefore did not err in holding the platted roadway was subject to an adverse possession claim.1 1 We note that our decision in Winnie Dev., 2018 ND 47, ¶ 9 , 907 N.W.2d 413 , is not dispositive in this case. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Welsh v. Monson
green
1 sentence2019The court thus found that “as to the platted roadway, there was no action by or on behalf of the public, or by the public authorities, to complete or accept the offer by the owner to dedicate such roadway for public use.” Relying on Welsh, 79 N.W.2d at 158 , the court concluded the platted roadway did not become a public right-of-way held by the township, but instead remained privately owned property and subject to an adverse possession claim. [¶21] Tonneson and Issendorf argue the district court erred in relying on the Welsh case. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Brown v. Brodell
green
1 sentence2018“Whether there has been mutual recognition of a boundary is a question of fact, and will be reviewed on appeal under a clearly erroneous standard.” Id. [¶11] “Like its sister doctrine of adverse possession, the doctrine of acquiescence allows for the principle of tacking to reach the 20-year requirement.” Id. at ¶ 9. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Thompson v. Associated Potato Growers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Thompson v. Associated Potato Growers, Inc., 2000 ND 95, ¶ 7 , 610 N.W.2d 53 . [¶ 10] The doctrine of acquiescence was created to allow a person to acquire property when occupying part of a neighbor's land due to an honest mistake as to the location of the true boundary, because the adverse intent requirement of the related doctrine of adverse possession *708 could not be met under those circumstances. 2001Thompson v. Associated Potato Growers, Inc., 2000 ND 95, ¶ 7 , 610 N.W.2d 53 . [¶ 10] The doctrine of acquiescence was created to allow a person to acquire property when occupying part of a neighbor's land due to an honest mistake as to the location of the true boundary, because the adverse intent requirement of the related doctrine of adverse possession *708 could not be met under those circumstances. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.