Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Engquist v. Wirtjes, 68 N.W.2d 412.

51 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
17, 2018); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (same); (stating that “[t]he function of an appellate court is that of review.
Nancy L. Holzer, as Trustee of the Nancy L. Holzer Trust dated September 2, 2005, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
I In Minnesota, a party claiming title to real property by adverse possession must show by clear and convincing evidence actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession for the statutory period, which is 15 years, Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2024).
In re the Marriage of: Lisa Ranelle Appelhof, petitioner, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Emily Kay Stilwagon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 221-22 (quotations and citations omitted); (stating that “[t]he function of an appellate court is that of review.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Nicholas Scott Thompson. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
at 221-22 (quotations and citations omitted); d 412, 414 (Minn. 1955) (“The function of an appellate court is that of review.
In re the Estate of: Pauline Mary Serpico, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If the length of judicial opinions is to be kept within reasonable bounds, appellate courts must more closely adhere to the purpose for which they exist.” d 412, 414 (Minn. 1955).
In re the Estate of: Irene B. Horton, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
tating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that i t supports the [district] court’s findings,” and an appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] considers all the evidence, as we have done here, and determine[s] that it reasonably supports the findings”); 14 (Minn. 1955) (stating that “[t]he function of an appellate court is that of review.
In the Matter of the Risk Level Determination of D. R. C. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
It does not exist for the purpose of demonstrating to the litigants through a detailed statement of the evidence that its decision is right.” Engquist v. Wirtjes , .
Nathan Tow-Arnett, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The function of this court is that of review and not to demonstrate to the “litigants through a detailed statement of the evidence that its decision is right.” Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 503
In Re the Custody of N.O.K. Jason Michael Krause v. Marissa Lauren Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Custody of N.O.K. Jason Michael Krause v. Marissa Lauren Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “does not exist for the purpose of demonstrating to the litigants through a detailed statement of the evidence that its decision is right.” Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 503
In the Matter of the Application of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Application of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
court “erred in making findings and an order unsupported by the evidence and improperly applying the law as to ‘what is the boundary line?’” In boundary-line cases the factual findings of the district court will not be disturbed unless “the evidence taken as a whole furnishes no substantial support for them or where it is manifestly or palpably contrary to the findings.” Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506, (quotation omitted).
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
Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 507-08 , (affirming no-practical-location finding absent evidence that disseized or predecessors recognized or treated a fence as a division line, or that disseizor or predecessors used the disputed land); (no practical location by acquiesc
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In boundary-line cases, the findings of the district court will not be disturbed unless “the evidence taken as a whole furnishes no substantial support for them or where it is manifestly or palpably contrary to the findings.” Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506 , (quotation omitted).
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
(“Although the doctrine of practical location, at least in effect, is similar to acquiring title by adverse possession, the two theories are distinct and require proof of different elements.”), review denied (Minn. June 27, 2000); see also Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 507 , (stating practical location is “independent of adverse possession”).
Petition of Building D, Inc. 502 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Petition of Building D, Inc. 502 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506
Weis v. Kozak 410 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Weis v. Kozak 410 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506
LeeJoice v. Harris 404 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
LeeJoice v. Harris 404 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 504 , Minn.Stat.
Nash v. Mahan 377 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Nash v. Mahan 377 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 505
Lechner v. Adelman 369 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lechner v. Adelman 369 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 504 , Minn.Stat.
Allred v. Reed 362 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Allred v. Reed 362 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Id.; see Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506
Neilan v. Braun 354 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Neilan v. Braun 354 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506
Wojahn v. Johnson 297 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1980
Wojahn v. Johnson 297 N.W.2d 298 Minn. 1980
Under the “acquiescence” theory of practical location, “the acquiescence required is not merely passive consent to the existence of a fence * * * , but rather is conduct or lack thereof from which assent to the fence * * * as a boundary line may be reasonably inferred.” Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 507-08
Ehle v. Prosser 197 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1972
Ehle v. Prosser 197 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1972
Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 504
Konantz v. Stein 167 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1969
Konantz v. Stein 167 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1969
10 See, Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412 ; Simms v. Fagan, 216 Minn. 283 , 12 N. W. (2d) 783 .
Phillips v. Blowers 161 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 1968
Phillips v. Blowers 161 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 1968
Because the crux of the case is defendant’s claim that the common boundary was established by practical location and user, we preface the discussion by recalling, as first stated in Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 545 , , and more recently reiterated in Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412, 416 , that the practical location of a boundary line can be established in only three ways: (1) Acquiescence or adverse possession.
Aldrich v. Wilson 120 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1963
Aldrich v. Wilson 120 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1963
n 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.” See, also, 37 Minn. L. Rev. 382 ; Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412, 416 ; Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson, supra.
Donaldson v. Kohner 118 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1962
Donaldson v. Kohner 118 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 1962
2 See, also, Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson, 232 Minn. 152 , 44 N. W. (2d) 775 ; Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412 .
Miller v. Martin 106 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1960
Miller v. Martin 106 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1960
541.02; Village of Newport v. Taylor, 225 Minn. 299 , 30 N. W. (2d) 588 ; Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson, 232 Minn. 152 , 44 N. W. (2d) 775 ; Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412 .
Erickson v. Turnquist 77 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1956
Erickson v. Turnquist 77 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1956
Co. v. Ellsworth, 237 Minn. 439 , 54 N. W. (2d) 800 ; Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412 .
Thomas v. Mrkonich 78 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1956