DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dozier v. Krmpotich, 35 N.W.2d 696.

33 citing documents.

  • A25-0090 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    8 for the proposition that a purchaser at a foreclosure sale is subject to plainly visible rights of other parties in 10 Levine’s reach is limited in this context because easements must be recorded before the tax judgment sale.
  • Nancy L. Holzer, as Trustee of the Nancy L. Holzer Trust dated September 2, 2005, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The Comparts counter by relying on Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 509, , which states that “[t]he continuity of adverse possession is not broken by the adverse claimant’ s taking a written conveyance of the interest claimed by him from parties claiming ownership of the property or some interest therein.” In evaluating the significance of the quitcla
  • Heuer v. County of Aitkin 645 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Heuer v. County of Aitkin 645 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507-08 , -99 (1949).
  • Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    Bur ns v. Plachecki, 301 Minn. 445, 448 , -36 (1974); Alstad v. Boyer, 228 Minn. 307, 310 , Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358, 360 , 214 N.W.
  • Boldt v. Roth 618 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2000
  • Boldt v. Roth 618 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2000
    See Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507-09
  • Boldt v. Roth 604 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Boldt v. Roth 604 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    The use “must become adverse to the knowledge of the owner of the servient estate before any prescriptive rights can arise.” Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , see also Johnson v. Hegland, 175 Minn. 592, 595 , 222 N.W.
  • Lindquist v. Weber 404 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Lindquist v. Weber 404 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , -99 (1949).
  • Lechner v. Adelman 369 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Lechner v. Adelman 369 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 191 , (quoting Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , ).
  • Gandy Co. v. Freuer 313 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1981
  • Gandy Co. v. Freuer 313 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1981
    court drew such a distinction in Ehle , by stating that “where the user is permissive on the part of the owner, there can be no prescriptive right, and * * * if the user was permissive in its inception, it must become adverse to the knowledge of the owner of the [land adversely possessed] before any prescriptive rights can arise.” 293 Minn. at 191 , d at 463 (quoting Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , ).
  • Nordin v. Kuno 287 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1980
  • Nordin v. Kuno 287 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1980
    Hartman v. Blanding’s, Inc., 288 Minn. 415 , Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 5Q3
  • Krinke v. Faricy 231 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1975
  • Krinke v. Faricy 231 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1975
    However, as this court stated in Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , : “* * * Where the claimant of an easement by prescription has shown open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use for the statutory period, inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient estate and under circumstances from which his knowledge and acquiescence may be inferr
  • Ehle v. Prosser 197 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1972
  • Ehle v. Prosser 197 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1972
    In Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , , our court held: “* * * Where the claimant of an easement by prescription has shown open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use for the statutory period, inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient estate and under circumstances from which his knowledge and acquiesce
  • Hartman v. Blanding's Inc. 181 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1970
  • Hartman v. Blanding's Inc. 181 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1970
    This court in Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 506 , 35 N. W. (2d) 696, 698 , said: “While statutes of limitation by their terms do not apply to actions involving incorporeal hereditaments such as easements, *421 but to those for the recovery of land, and while it is said that the right of easement is acquired by prescription and title to land by adverse possessi
  • Moore v. Henricksen 165 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
  • Moore v. Henricksen 165 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
    The principle controlling in this case is stated in Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , 35 N. W. (2d) 696, 699 , another case in which the claimant made use of a driveway on adjoining property to gain access to his property.
  • Reineke v. Schlinger 61 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1953
  • Reineke v. Schlinger 61 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1953
    In Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , 35 N. W. (2d) 696, 699 , this court stated: * * Where the claimant of an easement by prescription has shown open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use for the statutory period, inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient estate and under circumstances from which his knowledge and acquiescence m
  • Hildebrandt v. Hagen 38 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1949
  • Hildebrandt v. Hagen 38 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 1949
    In Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503 , 507 , , 699 , we stated: "* * * It must be apparent, therefore, that 'acquiescence' and 'permission' as used in this connection are not synonymous.
  • Alstad v. Boyer 37 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1949
  • Alstad v. Boyer 37 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1949
    In Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 506 , 35 N. W. (2d) 696, 698 , we said: “While statutes of limitation by their terms do not apply to actions involving incorporeal hereditaments such as easements, but to those for the recovery of land, and while it is said that the right of easement is acquired by prescription and title to land by adverse possession