Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Swogger v. Taylor, 68 N.W.2d 376.

61 citing documents.

Brandon Knowles, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In addition to the statutory remedies, a district court “may exercise its general equitable powers and resort to the most advantageous plans which the nature of the particular case admits in effecting, without great prejudice to any of the owners.”
Tyler Andrew Nesbit, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 376, 384 (Minn. 1955); see Minn. Stat. § 558.14 (2024) (stating the conditions under which partition by sale may be ordered).3 A district court may order a sale in a partition action “if it is alleged in the complaint and established by evidence that the property, or any part of it, is so situated that partition [in ki
Kimi Bragdon, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
whether such partition be accomplished by a division in kind, by sale, or by any practical combination of both methods.”
Roger Sand v. Sand Pine Pheasants Family Recreation, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Roger Sand v. Sand Pine Pheasants Family Recreation, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2024
vision of the partnership’s real property because the land that Roger received is of “higher quality” as “usable cropland.” But analogously, when “property is partitioned in kind, the owners must take potluck, and no one owner has a preferred claim to a distinct piece of property to the exclusion of the others, and each owner takes the share allotted to him by the [court].”
Laurie J. Akermark (fna: Frost) v. Bradley G. Stoeckel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Laurie J. Akermark (fna: Frost) v. Bradley G. Stoeckel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
at 48; (stating that a court’s “equitable powers” may be used to achieve the most advantageous partition for the unique circumstances of a case).
A23-0039 A23-0041 A23-0277 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Eric D. Humphreys, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
see Minn. Stat. § 558.01-.32 (2018).
Neumann v. Anderson 916 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Neumann v. Anderson 916 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Swogger v. Taylor , 243 Minn. 458 , 466-67, , 383 (1955) ; see also Carlson v. Olson , , 255 (Minn. 1977) ; Andersen v. Andersen , , 716 (Minn. App. 1985).
Kristin M. Schumacher, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
9 Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 461
Donald A. Rask v. James Rask, Gary Rask, Bell State Bank and Trust, d/b/a Bell Mortgage Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Donald A. Rask v. James Rask, Gary Rask, Bell State Bank and Trust, d/b/a Bell Mortgage Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 466-67, (d 249, 255 (Minn. 1977)).
Terry L. Gates v. Michael L. Macken Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terry L. Gates v. Michael L. Macken Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A party now seeks both legal and equitable relief in the same proceeding, but equity “functions as a supplement to the rest of the law where its remedies are inadequate to do complete justice.” Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 464
John W. Conzemius v. David J. Finnegan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John W. Conzemius v. David J. Finnegan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 466-67
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 831 N.W.2d 682 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Brown 829 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Brown 829 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 465 , (“A statute is not to be construed in derogation of well-established principles of common law, or of equity, unless so required by express words or by necessary implication and then only to the extent clearly indicated.” (emphasis omitted)); see also Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash.2d 57
Glenwood Investment Properties, L.L.C. v. Carroll A. Britton Family Trust 765 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Glenwood Investment Properties, L.L.C. v. Carroll A. Britton Family Trust 765 N.W.2d 112 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 466-67
Urban Ex Rel. Urban v. American Legion Post 184 695 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
equity’s normal function as an aid to complete justice.” Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 465
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
More significantly, we have repeatedly held that statutes will be presumed to not eliminate equitable remedies and are to be strictly construed so as to not supplant or restrict “equity’s normal function as an aid to complete justice.” Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 465
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 465 , (stating that we have “long presumed that statutes are consistent with the common law”).
Will & Appointment of Estate of Kipke v. Kipka 645 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Will & Appointment of Estate of Kipke v. Kipka 645 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Respondent estate and intervenors urge that “statutory enactments * * * are to be read in harmony with the existing body of law * * * unless an intention to change or repeal * * * is apparent.” Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 465
County of Blue Earth v. Turtle 593 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
County of Blue Earth v. Turtle 593 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
1997) (citing Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 464-65 , ), review dismissed (Minn. May 28,1997).
Anderson v. Anderson 560 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anderson v. Anderson 560 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 464-65
Marriage of LaFreniere-Nietz v. Nietz 547 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of LaFreniere-Nietz v. Nietz 547 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 464-65 , (holding that statute must not be construed in derogation of equitable principles, “unless so required by express-words or by necessary implication and then only to the extent clearly indicated”).
AFSCME Council No. 14, Local Union No. 517 v. Washington County Board of Commissioners 527 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
AFSCME Council No. 14, Local Union No. 517 v. Washington County Board of Commissioners 527 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 464
Beebout v. Beebout 447 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Beebout v. Beebout 447 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
§§ 558.01; 558.14 (1988); Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 468
First Trust Co. of St. Paul v. Holt 411 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
First Trust Co. of St. Paul v. Holt 411 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 461 , see Minn.Stat.
Matter of Estate of Kroyer 385 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Estate of Kroyer 385 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 465
LeZALLA v. State 366 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
LeZALLA v. State 366 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swogger v. Taylor, 243 Minn. 458, 464
Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp Corp. 311 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1981
Maras v. Stilinovich 268 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1978