DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bryant v. Gustafson, 40 N.W.2d 427.

30 citing documents.

  • Hader Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • A21-0832 Minn. 2023
    (“The dedication, being a good statutory dedication, did not have to be formally accepted by the town board.”); Bryant v. Gustafson , d 427, 434 (Minn. 1950) (“[W]here land .
  • Court of A ppeals Chutich, J. St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC, Respondent, vs. Minn. 2020
  • James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The Wolfstellers also rely on Bryant v. Gustafson , 230 Minn. 1, or—more specifically—on Grubb’s explanation of what Bryant held, to support their position.
  • Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
  • Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis 823 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2012
    § 645.08(2) (2012); Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1, 7 , *650 (holding that a statute authorizing the dedication of land to “any person” authorized “a dedication to any number of persons, in that the singular includes the plural”).
  • Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
  • Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 Minn. 2009
    construe statutory words importing the singular number as to include the plural unless it be otherwise specifically provided or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction.”); Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1, 7 , (examining a statutory provision for dedicating plats of land “to the public or any person or corporation” and stating that "[t]he use of the word 'person' authorizes a dedication to any number of persons, in that the singular includes the plural.
  • Bolen v. Glass 755 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2008
  • Bolen v. Glass 755 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2008
    It is a well-established rule of law in Minnesota “that one purchasing a lot within a plat may rely upon the dedication of streets and alleys shown therein, and possesses the right to use the same.” Etzler, 266 Minn. at 364 , d at 611 ; accord Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1, 8
  • Bolen v. Glass 737 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Bolen v. Glass 737 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Denman v. Gans 607 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Denman v. Gans 607 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    The district court derived its characterization of the waterfront as quasi-public from the supreme court’s decision in Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1
  • LeGro v. Saterdalen 607 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • LeGro v. Saterdalen 607 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    LeBlanc relies on Grubb and on Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1, 10 , -34 (1950), to support his argument that Minn.Stat.
  • Petition of Willmus 568 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Petition of Willmus 568 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    In Kane , the court distinguished Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1, 8 , by stating that encumbrances noted in plats identifying the land are binding on subsequent good faith purchasers for value of unregistered land, but the Torrens law prohibits the same outcome in cases where the purchaser registers the land.
  • Grubb v. State 433 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Grubb v. State 433 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    § 541.02 to an adverse possession claim not involving a boundary dispute is discussed in Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1
  • Popp v. County of Winona 430 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Popp v. County of Winona 430 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1, 8
  • Farnes v. Freeman Lane 161 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1968
  • Farnes v. Freeman Lane 161 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1968
    Co. 50 Minn. 438 , ; In re Petition of Schaller, 193 Minn. 604 , ; Troska v. Brecht, 140 Minn. 233 , ; Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1 , 40 N. W. (2d) 427 .
  • Etzler v. Mondale 123 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1963
  • Etzler v. Mondale 123 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1963
    Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1 , 40 N. W. (2d) 427 ; see, also, Gilbert v. Emerson, 60 Minn. 62 , .
  • Flynn v. Beisel 102 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1960
  • Flynn v. Beisel 102 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1960
    3 See Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1 , 40 N. W. (2d) 427 , citing and reaffirming the Village of Wayzata case.
  • Kane v. State 55 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1952
  • Kane v. State 55 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1952
    The reference to the plat, without question, incorporates into the certificate the physical location 'of the property and undoubtedly would be held to refer to those matters which go to *267 identifying the land and locating streets, alleys, etc. For the proposition that the reference to the plat in the certificate constitutes a noting of the encumbrance, defendants cite Bryant v. Gustafson, 230 Minn. 1, 8 , 40 N. W. (2d) 427, 432 , where this court said: “* * * He who purchases a lot with refer