DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 59 N.W.2d 813.

26 citing documents.

  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
    & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 47-49 , -16 (1953) (examining the language and structure of a statute to determine that a time limit on providing notice before commencing an action affecting title to real estate was not a procedural device but operated to absolutely bar the claim); see also Zipes, 455 U.S. at 393-94 , 102 S.Ct.
  • Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
  • Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
    & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , -17 (1953)) (internal *70 quotation marks omitted).
  • Hersh Properties, LLC v. McDonald's Corp. 573 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Hersh Properties, LLC v. McDonald's Corp. 573 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 48-49
  • Foster v. Bergstrom 515 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Foster v. Bergstrom 515 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 50 , the supreme court reversed the trial court and found that cleaning every spring, removing weeds annually, and occasionally hauling dirt to a disputed tract is “far from sufficient” for possession under the Act.
  • Weber v. Eisentrager 490 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Weber v. Eisentrager 490 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , ).
  • Township of Villard v. Hoting 442 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Township of Villard v. Hoting 442 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , ).
  • Henley v. County of Chisago 370 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Henley v. County of Chisago 370 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , ).
  • Northfork Township v. Joffer 353 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Northfork Township v. Joffer 353 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , ).
  • Ravenna Township v. Grunseth 314 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1981
  • Ravenna Township v. Grunseth 314 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1981
    at 236, d at 133 ; B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44
  • Township of Sterling v. Griffin 244 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
  • Township of Sterling v. Griffin 244 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
    Moreover, it has long been held that the county auditor’s records do not constitute notice of an interest in land, Roussain v. Norton, 53 Minn. 560 , cited in B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44
  • CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. Tapper 143 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1966
  • CAROGA REALTY COMPANY v. Tapper 143 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1966
    5, in B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 49 , 59 N. W. (2d) 813, 816 , saying: “* * * [N]o notice having been filed, the statute bars that part of defendant’s claim based upon alleged adverse possession occurring more than 40 years before this action was commenced unless, as defendant claims, it was in possession of the real estate within the meaning of sub
  • Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
  • Wichelman v. Messner 83 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 1957
    Citing B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44 , 59 N. W. (2d) 813 , he asserts that the grantee in a stray or interloping deed might become “the absolute owner” of property.
  • B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. Dakota County 74 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1955
  • B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. Dakota County 74 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1955
    Respondent argues that there has never been any contention on its part that the county auditor did not know that the property was listed as being tax exempt, but contends that until a decision was made on July 24, 1953, in the case of B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44 , 59 N. W. (2d) 813 , there had been no judicial finding as to who was the owner of the property.