Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ehle v. Prosser, 197 N.W.2d 458.

58 citing documents.

Edward B. Berkner, Trustee of Berkner Living Trust, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
To succeed on an adverse-possession claim, a plaintiff must prove, “by clear and convincing evidence, an actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession for the requisite period of time which, under our statute, is 15 years.” d 458, 462 (Minn. 1972); see also Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2024) (providing that the statutory period is 15 years).
Nancy L. Holzer, as Trustee of the Nancy L. Holzer Trust dated September 2, 2005, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Hostile possession “does not refer to personal animosity or physical overt acts against the record owner of the property.”
Stephen Sawyer, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The exclusivity requirement of adverse possession is satisfied if the disseizor possesses the land as if it were his own with the intention of using it to the exclusion of others.” Ganje, d at 267 (quotations omitted); (holding adverse possessor must “intend to exclude all others”).
Allen Logelin v. Randy J. Poynter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Allen Logelin v. Randy J. Poynter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Starbeck v. Gibson, 4 v. Schuler, (d 458, 462 (Minn. 1972)).
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) ().
Mary Ann Karnowski v. Thomas George Wimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Mary Ann Karnowski v. Thomas George Wimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Patricia Klug, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) ().
Court of A ppeals Chutich, J. St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC, Respondent, vs. Minn. 2020
See Mellenthin, d at 144 (collecting cases)
Lyle Batton, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To succeed on an adverse possession claim, a plaintiff must prove , “by clear and convincing evidence, an actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession for the requisite period of time which, under our statute, is 15 years.” Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189, see also Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2016) ( providing that statutory period is 15 years).
John Aydt, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189
Paul M. Dobis v. David L. Scegura, Trustee of the David L. Scegura Trust, David Catlin, Patricia Ann … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul M. Dobis v. David L. Scegura, Trustee of the David L. Scegura Trust, David Catlin, Patricia Ann … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dodson’s actions were significantly more than “passive conduct on the part of the owner of the servient estate.” Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 191, (distinguishing 9 “acquiescence” from “permission” in the context of establishing an adverse user of property).
Roger E. Pederson v. Elizabeth J. Anderson, Chisago Lake Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Roger E. Pederson v. Elizabeth J. Anderson, Chisago Lake Township Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The hostility element of adverse possession “contemplates the disseizor entering and taking possession of the land as if it were the disseizor’s.” Id.; see also Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 190, (stating that hostile possession is the “intention of the disseizor to claim exclusive ownership as against the world and to treat the property in dispute in a manner generally associated with the ownership of similar type property in the particular area involved”).
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
20, 1996); see also Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189-90, (requiring that the possessor of land in an adverse possession action not also be the owner of the possessed land and, instead, have an intent to “oust the owner”).
Mark G. Warrington v. Donald E. Falk, Robert A. Schmaltz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark G. Warrington v. Donald E. Falk, Robert A. Schmaltz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 190
Slindee v. Fritch Investments, LLC 760 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Slindee v. Fritch Investments, LLC 760 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 183 , (stating that divesting record owners of title bars them from remedy).
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
v. Siemers, (remanding to the district court with directions to amend the judgment consistent with the supreme court’s analysis reflecting title by adverse possession after holding that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated adverse possession); Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 192 , -64 (1972) (“Having concluded that plaintiffs have established title to the disputed property by adverse possession, it is not necessary to consider ...
Bloomquist v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 704 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bloomquist v. Commissioner of Natural Resources 704 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 190-91
Ganje v. Schuler 659 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ganje v. Schuler 659 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
2 The hostility requirement “does not refer to personal animosity or physical overt acts against the record owner of the property.” Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 190
Rogers v. Moore 603 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
Rogers v. Moore 603 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
See Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189
Stanard v. Urban 453 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Stanard v. Urban 453 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189 , Minn.Stat.
Grubb v. State 433 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Grubb v. State 433 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183
Weis v. Kozak 410 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Weis v. Kozak 410 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189 , Minn.Stat.
Pickar v. Erickson 382 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Pickar v. Erickson 382 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189 , 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
To establish title by adverse possession, “the disseizor must show, by clear and convincing evidence, an actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession for the requisite period of time.” Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189
Morken v. Morken 375 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Morken v. Morken 375 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189
Lechner v. Adelman 369 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lechner v. Adelman 369 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 191 , (quoting Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , ).