DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fishman v. Nielsen, 53 N.W.2d 553.

29 citing documents.

  • In re the Matter of the Application of Mekonnen Tulu and Tadelech N. Guda to Register the Title … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    (“[W]ithout evidence of knowledge, one of the essential elements to create an estoppel is missing.”).
  • Ruikkie v. Nall 798 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Ruikkie v. Nall 798 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    The practical boundary must be “known, definite, certain, and capable of ascertainment.” Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1, 8 , see also Wojahn, d at 305 (finding no boundary by practical location where fence “was deteriorating and in disrepair at various times” throughout the statutory period).
  • Britney v. Swan Lake Cabin Corp. 795 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Britney v. Swan Lake Cabin Corp. 795 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    Typically, practical location by acquiescence “occurs when neighbors attempt to establish a fence as close to the actual boundary as possible, or when the disseizor unilaterally marks the boundary, and the disseized neighbor thereafter recognizes that line as the actual boundary.” Pratt, d at 851 ; see also Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1, 5-6 , -56 (1952) (finding practical location by acquiescence when parties and their predecessors in title built dividing fence as close as possible to actual
  • Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    see also Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1, 7-8 , -57 (1952) (finding boundary by practical location through acquiescence when two predecessors in title agreed on a line, built a fence on the line, and acquiesced in the line for at least 18 years).
  • Pratt Investment Co. v. Kennedy 636 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Pratt Investment Co. v. Kennedy 636 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    See Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1, 6 , (explaining that “the location relied upon must have been acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time to bar a right of entry under the statute of limitations”).
  • Matter of Zahradka 472 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Matter of Zahradka 472 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Id., d at 215 (citing Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1, 6-7 , ).
  • Wojahn v. Johnson 297 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1980
  • Wojahn v. Johnson 297 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1980
    at 508 , d at 417 ; see Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1
  • 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 .
  • Moore v. Henricksen 165 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
  • Moore v. Henricksen 165 N.W.2d 209 Minn. 1968
    Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 .
  • Amato v. Haraden 159 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1968
  • Amato v. Haraden 159 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1968
    The authorities upon which plaintiff relies are a long line of cases beginning with Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , , and continuing down to the more recent cases of Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson, 232 Minn. 152 , 44 N. W. (2d) 775 ; and Aldrich v. Wilson, 265 Minn. 150 , 120 N. W. (2d) 849 .
  • Aldrich v. Wilson 120 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1963
  • Aldrich v. Wilson 120 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1963
    Gifford v. Vore, 245 Minn. 432 , 72 N. W. (2d) 625 ; Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Selnes, 223 Minn. 518 , 27 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396 , 13 N. W. *161 (2d) 384; Dunkel v. Roth, 211 Minn. 194 , ; Liederbach v. Pickett, 199 Minn. 554 , ; Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; M. S. A. 559.23.”
  • Neill v. Hake 93 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1958
  • Neill v. Hake 93 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1958
    Gifford v. Vore, 245 Minn. 432 , 72 N. W. (2d) 625 ; Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Selnes, 223 Minn. 518 , 27 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396 , 13 N. W. (2d) 384 ; Dunkel v. Roth, 211 Minn. 194 , ; Liederbach v. Pickett, 199 Minn. 554 , ; Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; M. S. A. 559.23.
  • Thomas v. Mrkonich 78 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1956
  • Thomas v. Mrkonich 78 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1956
    Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412 ; Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 .
  • Gifford v. Vore 72 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1955
  • Gifford v. Vore 72 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1955
    Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 .
  • Engquist v. Wirtjes 68 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1955
  • Engquist v. Wirtjes 68 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1955
    While this court, in Simms v. Fagan, 216 Minn. 283 , 12 N. W. (2d) 783 , said that, because the establishment of a practical location by acquiescence rests upon the principle of estoppel, knowledge of the exact boundary line was necessary, 10 in Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 , we held that such knowledge was not a prerequisite.