9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ganje v. Schulergreen2 sentences2017Steve overtly tilled the disputed area and planted crops; his possession was visible to those seeking to enforce their rights. 8 To satisfy the exclusivity requirement of adverse possession, the disseizor must possess the land “as if it were his own with the intention of using it to the exclusion of others.” Ganje, 659 N.W.2d at 267 (quotation omitted). 2015Exclusive “The exclusivity requirement of adverse possession is satisfied if the disseizor possesses the land as if it were his own with the intention of using it to the exclusion of others.” Ganje, 659 N.W.2d at 267 (quotation omitted); see also Ehle, 493 Minn. at 190, 197 N.W.2d at 462-63 . | 2 | 2 |
Ehle v. Prossergreen1 sentence2015Exclusive “The exclusivity requirement of adverse possession is satisfied if the disseizor possesses the land as if it were his own with the intention of using it to the exclusion of others.” Ganje, 659 N.W.2d at 267 (quotation omitted); see also Ehle, 493 Minn. at 190, 197 N.W.2d at 462-63 . | 1 | 1 |
Reiter v. Kiffmeyergreen2 sentences2008See Reiter v. Kiffmeyer, 721 N.W.2d 908, 911 (Minn.2006) ("[W]e will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently."). 2008See Reiter v. Kiffmeyer, 721 N.W.2d 908, 911 (Minn.2006) (“[W]e will not read into a statute a provision that the legislature has omitted, either purposely or inadvertently.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ebenhoh v. Hodgmangreen1 sentence2003Exclusivity The exclusivity requirement of adverse possession is satisfied if the dissei-zor possesses “the land as if it were his own with the intention of using it to the exclusion of others.” Ebenhoh, 642 N.W.2d at 108 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Wheeler v. Newmangreen1 sentence2002A. Exclusivity The exclusivity requirement is met if the disseizor takes “possession of the land as if it were his own with the intention of using it to the exclusion of others.” Wheeler v. Newman, 394 N.W.2d 620, 623 (Minn.App.1986) (citing Thomas v. Mrkonich, 247 Minn. 481, 484 , 78 N.W.2d 386, 388 (1956)). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Mrkonichgreen2 sentences2002A. Exclusivity The exclusivity requirement is met if the disseizor takes “possession of the land as if it were his own with the intention of using it to the exclusion of others.” Wheeler v. Newman, 394 N.W.2d 620, 623 (Minn.App.1986) (citing Thomas v. Mrkonich, 247 Minn. 481, 484 , 78 N.W.2d 386, 388 (1956)). 2002A. Exclusivity The exclusivity requirement is met if the disseizor takes “possession of the land as if it were his own with the intention of using it to the exclusion of others.” Wheeler v. Newman, 394 N.W.2d 620, 623 (Minn.App.1986) (citing Thomas v. Mrkonich, 247 Minn. 481, 484 , 78 N.W.2d 386, 388 (1956)). | 1 | 1 |
Nordin v. Kunogreen1 sentence1986Nordin v. Kuno, 287 N.W.2d 923, 926 (Minn.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Flaherty v. Lindsay
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 33 . “[AJllowing a civil action for any wrongdoing by the employer would shatter the exclusivity principle.” Id. 2013Id. at 33 . “[AJllowing a civil action for any wrongdoing by the employer would shatter the exclusivity principle.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
McGowan v. Our Savior's Lutheran Church
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Bergeson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
1 sentence1991As we noted in Bergeson , allowing a civil action for any wrongdoing by the employer would shatter the exclusivity principle. 414 N.W.2d at 727 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.