6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1906–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Township of Sterling v. Griffingreen2 sentences2010See Township of Sterling v. Griffin, 309 Minn. 230, 236 , 244 N.W.2d 129, 133 (1976). 2010See Township of Sterling v. Griffin, 309 Minn. 230, 236 , 244 N.W.2d 129, 133 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
Wichelman v. Messnergreen2 sentences2010Id. at 117-18 , 83 N.W.2d at 823 . 2010Id. at 117-18 , 83 N.W.2d at 823 . | 1 | 2 |
B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastingsgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., B.W. & Leo Harris Co., 240 Minn. at 49 , 59 N.W.2d at 816 . 2010See, e.g., B.W. & Leo Harris Co., 240 Minn. at 49 , 59 N.W.2d at 816 . | 1 | 1 |
Risdall v. Brown-Wilbert, Inc.green2 sentences2010Those letters state: “Ms. Simes and her family have been members of the dock association next to your property since before the Second World War and have had no reason to exercise their right of entry” and “the Berg/Simes family ... have been using the Dock Association access next to your property for many years, notwithstanding the existence of deeded access to the lake over the easterly portion of your property.” The Sampairs argue, and the district court and court of appeals held, that these letters directly contradict Simes’s affidavits, and therefore the Simes affidavits cannot be used to 2010Those letters state: "Ms. Simes and her family have been members of the dock association next to your property since before the Second World War and have had no reason to exercise their right of entry" and "the Berg/Simes family... have been using the Dock Association access next to your property for many years, notwithstanding the existence of deeded access to the lake over the easterly portion of your property." The Sampairs argue, and the district court and court of appeals held, that these letters directly contradict Simes's affidavits, and therefore the Simes affidavits cannot be used to | 1 | 1 |
CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. Tappergreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Caroga Realty Co., 274 Minn. at 177-80 , 143 N.W.2d at 224-26 . 2010See, e.g., Caroga Realty Co., 274 Minn. at 177-80 , 143 N.W.2d at 224-26 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood
green
2 sentences2015“Even though easements are not possessory estates, the possession exception of the MTA may be invoked by easement holders.” Sampair, 784 N.W.2d at 69 . “[T]he MTA possession exception requires those seeking its protection to prove use of an easement sufficient to put a prudent person on notice, giving due regard to the nature of the easement at issue.” Id. at 67 . 2015“Even though easements are not possessory estates, the possession exception of the MTA may be invoked by easement holders.” Sampair, 784 N.W.2d at 69 . “[T]he MTA possession exception requires those seeking its protection to prove use of an easement sufficient to put a prudent person on notice, giving due regard to the nature of the easement at issue.” Id. at 67 . | 3 | 2014–2024 |
Lindberg v. Fasching
green
2 sentences2010Appellants argue that we should adopt the possession standard and reasoning from Lindberg v. Fasching, 667 N.W.2d 481 (Minn.App.2003), a case in which the court of appeals traced the evolution of the MTA possession standard and articulated a standard in the context of easements. 2010Appellants argue that we should adopt the possession standard and reasoning from Lindberg v. Fasching, 667 N.W.2d 481 (Minn.App.2003), a case in which the court of appeals traced the evolution of the MTA possession standard and articulated a standard in the context of easements. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ricker v. Butler
neutral
2 sentences1906Ricker v. Butler, 45 Minn. 545 , 48 N. W. 407 ; Hanson v. Ingwaldson, 77 Minn. 533 , 80 N. W. 702 , 77 Am. 1906Ricker v. Butler, 45 Minn. 545 , 48 N. W. 407 ; Hanson v. Ingwaldson, 77 Minn. 533 , 80 N. W. 702 , 77 Am. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Rogers v. Town of Aitkin
neutral
1 sentence1906Ricker v. Butler, 45 Minn. 545 , 48 N. W. 407 ; Hanson v. Ingwaldson, 77 Minn. 533 , 80 N. W. 702 , 77 Am. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Hanson v. Ingwaldson
neutral
1 sentence1906Ricker v. Butler, 45 Minn. 545 , 48 N. W. 407 ; Hanson v. Ingwaldson, 77 Minn. 533 , 80 N. W. 702 , 77 Am. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.