Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wichelman v. Messner, 83 N.W.2d 800.

123 citing documents.

In re the Matter of the Application of State of Minnesota to Register the Title to Certain Land. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“First, the party desiring to invoke the statute for his own benefit must have a requisite ‘claim of title based upon a source of title, which source has then been of record at least 40 years,’ (i.e., a recorded fee simple title).” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 541.023, subd.
A21-0832 Minn. 2023
4 The County appears to agree that this is a question of statutory interpretation, but argues that this court has previously framed cases involving the MTA as focusing “on whether applying the MTA would be inconsistent with the MTA’s purposes.”
Andres Lugo, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., see Minn. Stat. § 541.01 (2022) (“Actions can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this chapter, after the cause of action accrues.”); (“[A] statute of limitations necessarily deprives a person of an interest which he would be able to assert in the absence of the statute if he fails to commence action in the stated period.”).
In the Matter of the Application of Mojtaba Sharifkhani to Register Title to Certain Land. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Dellwood Farm, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The MTA is a mechanism for landowners to “relieve a title from the servitude of provisions contained in ancient records which fetter the marketability of real estate.” (quotation omitted); Minn. Stat. § 541.023 (2020).
Ross R. Lundstrom, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotation omitted) (syllabus by the court).
A21-0832 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A. The Minnesota Marketable Title Act The MTA is a mechanism for landowners to “relieve a title from the servitude of provisions contained in ancien t records which fetter the mark etability of real estate.” (quotation omitted); Minn. Stat. § 541.023 (2020).
A19-1878 Minn. 2021
(explaining that what is a reasonable time within which to assert a right is a matter of legislative discretion, exercised “in light of the nature of the subject and purpose of the enactment, and we have said that ‘the courts will not inquire into the wisdom of the exercise of this discretion by
A20-0206 A20-0228 A20-0229 Minn. 2021
at 564 (quoting Wichelman v. Messner , ).
Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Minn. 2020
Paul King, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
unless the time allowed is manifestly so short as to amount to a practical denial of justice.”
In re Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the 33rd Sale of State Metallic Leases in Aitkin, Lake, & Saint … 838 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the 33rd Sale of State Metallic Leases in Aitkin, Lake, & Saint … 838 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“A mineral interest may be severed from, and exist as a fee interest independent of, a surface estate.” Pillandco, , 472 n. 1 (Minn.App.2006) (citing Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 102-03 , ).
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Div. of Sterling Drug, Inc., 291 Minn. 145, 151 , Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108 , Weston v. Jones, 160 Minn. 32, 36 , 199 N.W.
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 107 , (explaining that statutes of limitation “will bar any right, however high the source from which it may be deduced, provided that a reasonable time is given a party to enforce his right” (citation omitted)).
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
§ 541.023; Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 99-101, 112 , -13, 819-20 *69 (1957).
Pillandco, Inc. v. State 718 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Pillandco, Inc. v. State 718 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 102-03
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 699 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2005
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 699 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2005
See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 99
State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hess 684 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hess 684 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 105
Lindberg v. Fasching 667 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Lindberg v. Fasching 667 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 98
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd. 645 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2002
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd. 645 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2002
1628 (1945); see also Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88 , (noting constitutional prohibition against retroactive application of law does not apply to statutes of limitations).
Piche v. Independent School District No. 621 634 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Piche v. Independent School District No. 621 634 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 100 , (citations omitted).
Murray v. Cisar 594 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Murray v. Cisar 594 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 107
Hersh Properties, LLC v. McDonald's Corp. 588 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1999
Hersh Properties, LLC v. McDonald's Corp. 588 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1999
As we have previously stated, “[t]he Marketable Title Act is a comprehensive plan for reform in conveyancing procedures * * Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 105
Pollock-Halvarson v. McGuire 576 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Pollock-Halvarson v. McGuire 576 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 99
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
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 112
Hiller v. County of Anoka 529 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hiller v. County of Anoka 529 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Wichelman v. Messner , 250 Minn. 88 , 101 , , 813 (1957) (noting the legislature's stated policy that "ancient records shall not fetter" the sale of real estate).
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Larson v. Sando 508 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88,118
Independent School District No. 622 v. Keene Corp. 495 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Independent School District No. 622 v. Keene Corp. 495 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (reasonable time must be given to allow those with claims to comply with shortened statute of limitations); Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108-09 , (legislature cannot arbitrarily wipe out old claims without providing reasonable means of preserving them and reasonable time to do so).
Weber v. Eisentrager 498 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1993
Weber v. Eisentrager 498 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 1993
This court first dealt significantly with the MTA in Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88
State Ex Rel. McMaster v. Benson 495 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1993

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by