Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Village of Newport v. Taylor, 30 N.W.2d 588.

86 citing documents.

Dale LeRoy Tiede v. County of Le Sueur, Daniel J. Sullivan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dale LeRoy Tiede v. County of Le Sueur, Daniel J. Sullivan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, ‘without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the [adverse claimant], but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.’” ().
Matthew Lalone v. Daniel Joseph Duerst Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Matthew Lalone v. Daniel Joseph Duerst Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, ‘without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.’” 6 ().
Mary Ann Karnowski v. Thomas George Wimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Mary Ann Karnowski v. Thomas George Wimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Clear and convincing evidence requires “a strict construction of the evidence, without resort to any inference or presumption” that favors the adverse claimant, “but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.”
J & W Asphalt, Inc. v. Belle Plaine Township, State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 883 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
J & W Asphalt, Inc. v. Belle Plaine Township, State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 883 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Areas Shown on Plat of Suburban Estates, 311 Minn. 446, 451, Village of Medford v. Wilson, 304 Minn. 250, 252, d 458, 459 (1975); Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 305, St.
Mark G. Warrington v. Donald E. Falk, Robert A. Schmaltz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark G. Warrington v. Donald E. Falk, Robert A. Schmaltz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, “without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303 , (“The evidence must * * * amount to clear and positive proof before title by adverse possession will be granted.” (citation omitted)), review denied (Minn. June 15,1990).
Rogers v. Moore 603 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
Rogers v. Moore 603 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
225 Minn. 299, 303 , (stating that adverse possession must be established by “clear and positive proof based on a strict construction of the evidence”).
Reads Landing Campers Ass'n v. Township of Pepin 546 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1996
Reads Landing Campers Ass'n v. Township of Pepin 546 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1996
Combining the holdings in Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , and City of Rochester v. North Side Corp., 211 Minn. 276 , the court established the five elements necessary to prove abandonment of public, dedicated property: [A]n estoppel arises where there is long-continued nonuser by the municipality, together with the possession by p
Reads Landing Campers Ass'n v. Township of Pepin 533 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Reads Landing Campers Ass'n v. Township of Pepin 533 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
water and sewer service to home; and after visiting building site, mayor told homeowners they should proceed with construction); State v. Marcks, 228 Minn. 129, 136-37 , (estoppel applied when city located telephone poles in street; placed defendant’s building on tax rolls; furnished utilities to building; and designated substitute street); Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 305 , (nonuse coupled with failure to remove obstructions constructed by abutting property owners does not const
Wolfson v. City of St. Paul 535 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Wolfson v. City of St. Paul 535 N.W.2d 384 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 305
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Axelson v. Minneapolis Teachers' Retirement Fund Ass'n 532 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
v. Sand, 227 Minn. 202 , Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , Alexander Co. v. City of Owatonna, 222 Minn. 312 , rev’d on other grounds, Petition of Halberg Constr.
Weis v. Kozak 410 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Weis v. Kozak 410 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
29, 1985) (quoting Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303 , ).
LeeJoice v. Harris 404 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
LeeJoice v. Harris 404 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The evidence must be strictly construed, “without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303
Lechner v. Adelman 369 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lechner v. Adelman 369 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The evidence must be strictly construed, “without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 303
Kenney v. Webb 352 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kenney v. Webb 352 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299
Fischer v. City of Sauk Rapids 325 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 1982
Fischer v. City of Sauk Rapids 325 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 1982
The Fischers concede in this matter that they have no claim to the platted streets as this claim is controlled by our decision in Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299
Halverson v. Village of Deerwood 322 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1982
Halverson v. Village of Deerwood 322 N.W.2d 761 Minn. 1982
Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299, 306, (quoting Steele v. Fowler, 111 Ind.App.
Town of Red Rock v. County of Mower 250 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1977
In Re Maintenance of Road Areas, Etc. 250 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1977
Town of Red Rock v. County of Mower 250 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1977
766 (1918); Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , Village of Medford v. Wilson, 304 Minn. 250
In Re Maintenance of Road Areas, Etc. 250 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1977
766 (1918); Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , Village of Medford v. Wilson, 304 Minn. 250
Local Government Information Systems v. Village of New Hope 248 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1976
Local Government Information Systems v. Village of New Hope 248 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1976
State, by Burnquist, v. Marcks, 228 Minn. 129 , Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , The Alexander Co. v. City of Owatonna, 222 Minn. 312
Township of Sterling v. Griffin 244 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
Township of Sterling v. Griffin 244 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
gent rights claimed under a condition subsequent or restriction it shall affirmatively show why such condition or restriction is not, or has not become nominal so that it may be disregarded under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1945, Section 500.20, Subdivision 1.” 2 See, e. g., In re Application of Rein to Register Title, 275 Minn. 79 , Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , Freeman v. Township of Pine City, 205 Minn. 309 , Parker v. City of St.
Village of Medford v. Wilson 230 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1975
Village of Medford v. Wilson 230 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1975
Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , City of Rochester v. North Side Corp. 211 Minn. 276 , Pierro v. City of Minneapolis, 139 Minn. 394 , Minn. St.
Quist v. Fuller 220 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1974
Quist v. Fuller 220 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1974
See, Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299
Sullivan v. Credit River Township 217 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1974
Sullivan v. Credit River Township 217 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1974
Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299
Konantz v. Stein 167 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1969
Konantz v. Stein 167 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1969
9 Sherin v. Brackett, 36 Minn. 152, 154 , ; Dean v. Goddard, supra; Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , 30 N. W. (2d) 588 ; Johnson v. Raddohl, 226 Minn. 343 , 32 N. W. (2d) 860 ; Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Gifford v. Vore, 245 Minn. 432 , 72 N. W. (2d) 625 .