DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Benz v. City of St. Paul, 93 N.W. 1038.

40 citing documents.

  • Ruikkie v. Nall 798 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Ruikkie v. Nall 798 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31, 36 , 93 N.W.
  • Slindee v. Fritch Investments, LLC 760 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Slindee v. Fritch Investments, LLC 760 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31, 36 , 93 N.W.
  • Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    Paul, 89 Minn. 81, 37 , (explaining that a high quantum of evidence is necessary because establishing a boundary by practical location “shall deprive the party claiming under the deed of his legal rights”).
  • Theros v. Phillips 256 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977
  • Theros v. Phillips 256 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , 93 N.W.
  • Magnuson v. City of White Bear Lake 203 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1973
  • Magnuson v. City of White Bear Lake 203 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1973
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31, 38 , as follows: “* * * [T]he practical location of a boundary line can be established in one of three ways only: (1) The location relied upon must have been acquisced [sic] in for a sufficient length of time to bar a right of entry under the statute of limitations; (2) the line must have
  • Engquist v. Wirtjes 68 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1955
  • Engquist v. Wirtjes 68 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1955
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31, 38 , , we set forth three exclusive methods by which “practical location” can be established: “* * * (1) The location relied upon must have been acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time to bar a right of entry under the statute of limitations; (2) the line must have been expressly agreed upon
  • Fishman v. Nielsen 53 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1952
  • Fishman v. Nielsen 53 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1952
  • Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson 44 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1950
  • Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson 44 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1950
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , ; Marek v. Jelinek, 121 Minn. 468 , .
  • Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Selnes 27 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1947
  • Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Selnes 27 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1947
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , ; Marek v. Jelinek, 121 Minn. 468 , .
  • Simms v. Fagan 12 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1943
  • Simms v. Fagan 12 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1943
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , ; Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156 , 9 N. W. (2d) 421 .
  • Dunkel v. Roth 300 N.W. 610 Minn. 1941
  • Dunkel v. Roth 300 N.W. 610 Minn. 1941
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31, 38 , , that they should be quoted: “The practical location of a boundary line can be established in one of three ways only: (1) The location relied upon must have been acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time to bar a right of entry under the statute of limitations; (2) the line must have bee
  • Lenzmeier v. Ess 270 N.W. 677 Minn. 1937
  • Lenzmeier v. Ess 270 N.W. 677 Minn. 1937
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , ; Marek v. Jelinek, 121 Minn. 468 , ; Roy v. Dannehr, 124 Minn. 233 , ; 7 Minn. L. Rev. 569 , 572.
  • Einung v. Schlopkohl 151 N.W. 273 Minn. 1915
  • Einung v. Schlopkohl 151 N.W. 273 Minn. 1915
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , ; Nadeau v. Johnson, 125 Minn. 365 , ; County of Houston v. Burns, 126 Minn. 206 , .
  • County of Houston v. Burns 148 N.W. 115 Minn. 1914
  • County of Houston v. Burns 148 N.W. 115 Minn. 1914
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , ; Nadeau v. Johnson, 125 Minn. 365 , .
  • Nadeau v. Johnson 147 N.W. 241 Minn. 1914
  • Nadeau v. Johnson 147 N.W. 241 Minn. 1914
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , , following the Beardsley case, it was held that the practical location of such line might be established in one of three ways, the second of which, the only one here material, was there expressed as follows: “The line must have -been expressly agreed upon between the parties claiming the land on both
  • Roy v. Dannehr 144 N.W. 758 Minn. 1914
  • Roy v. Dannehr 144 N.W. 758 Minn. 1914
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , ; Markusen v. Mortensen, 105 Minn. 10 , ; Marek v. Jelinek, 121 Minn. 468 , .
  • Marek v. Jelinek 141 N.W. 788 Minn. 1913
  • Marek v. Jelinek 141 N.W. 788 Minn. 1913
    Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , , the rules as to wha,t constitutes such a practical location are well stated by the present Chief Justice as follows: “The practical location of % boundary line can be established in ■one of three ways only: (1) The location relied upon must have been acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time to b
  • Moser v. Doffner 125 N.W. 275 Minn. 1910
  • Moser v. Doffner 125 N.W. 275 Minn. 1910
  • Markusen v. Mortensen 116 N.W. 1021 Minn. 1908
  • Markusen v. Mortensen 116 N.W. 1021 Minn. 1908
  • Kelly v. Daley 102 N.W. 858 Minn. 1905
  • Kelly v. Daley 102 N.W. 858 Minn. 1905