DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Merrick v. Schleuder, 228 N.W. 755.

24 citing documents.

  • Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation 760 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation 760 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228, 232 , 228 N.W.
  • Wheeler v. Newman 394 N.W.2d 620 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Wheeler v. Newman 394 N.W.2d 620 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228, 232 , 228 N.W.
  • Nordin v. Kuno 287 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1980
  • Nordin v. Kuno 287 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1980
    Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228, 232 , 228 N.W.
  • Hartman v. Blanding's Inc. 181 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1970
  • Hartman v. Blanding's Inc. 181 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1970
    The rule was laid down in Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228, 230 , , that— <<* * * ‘where the claimant [of an easement by prescription] has shown an open, visible, continuous and unmolested use’ for the required period inconsistent with the owner’s rights and under circumstances from which may be inferred his knowledge and acquiescence, the use will be
  • Moore v. Henricksen 165 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
  • Moore v. Henricksen 165 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
    He made no finding that it was exclusive, but in view of the fact that the use need only be exclusive as against the community at large, Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , , there can be no doubt that the use was exclusive.
  • CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. Tapper 143 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1966
  • CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. Tapper 143 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1966
    Plaintiffs, however, cite Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , , as an authority which recognized the use of an alley by the plaintiff and by customers of the plaintiff as acts constituting adverse possession.
  • Hanson v. Fergus Falls National Bank & Trust Co. 65 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1954
  • Hildebrandt v. Hagen 38 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1949
  • Hildebrandt v. Hagen 38 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1949
    They are expressed in Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , 230 , 228 N.W.
  • Alstad v. Boyer 37 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1949
  • Alstad v. Boyer 37 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1949
    Schmidt v. *311 Koecher, 196 Minn. 178 , ; Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , ; Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358 , ; Annotation, 170 A. L. R. 778, et seq.” (Italics supplied.)
  • Dozier v. Krmpotich 35 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1949
  • Dozier v. Krmpotich 35 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1949
    Schmidt v. Koecher, 196 Minn. 178 , ; Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , ; Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358 , ; Annotation, 170 A. L. R. 778, et seq.
  • Romans v. Nadler 14 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1944
  • Schmidt v. Koecher 263 N.W. 347 Minn. 1936
  • Schmidt v. Koecher 263 N.W. 347 Minn. 1936
    49 ; Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , 228 N.W.
  • Stokke v. Mikkelsen 239 N.W. 658 Minn. 1931
  • Stokke v. Mikkelsen 239 N.W. 658 Minn. 1931
    The only authority cited by plaintiff is Merrick v. Schleuder, 179 Minn. 228 , ; but there there was a finding in favor of a prescriptive right to an easement, while here the finding is adverse to plaintiff as well as are the reasonable inferences.