Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wojahn v. Johnson, 297 N.W.2d 298.

76 citing documents.

In re the Matter of the Application of Mekonnen Tulu and Tadelech N. Guda to Register the Title … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“When a [physical barrier] is claimed to represent a boundary line under an acquiescence theory, one of the most important factors is whether the parties attempted and intended to place the [physical barrier] as near the dividing line as possible.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kyaw Be Bee 5 N.W.3d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kyaw Be Bee 5 N.W.3d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, -51 (Minn. 2023); -07 (Minn. 1980); In re Stoick Creek, LLC, n.1 (Minn. App. 2023).
Matthew Lalone v. Daniel Joseph Duerst Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Matthew Lalone v. Daniel Joseph Duerst Minn. Ct. App. 2024
permissive it would be presumed to continue as permissive, rather than hostile, until the contrary [is] affirmatively shown.” see also Junes v. Junes, 196 N.W.
David R. Towley, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 (concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a bo undary by practical location wh ere a fence was, at various points during the statutory period, in disrepair or deteriorating).
Richard S. Anderson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Petition of Melvin J. Cummins for an Order Determining Boundary Lines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Relying on a fence to establish a boundary usually requires evidence proving that the purpose of erecting the fence was to mark the boundary: “When a fence is claimed to represent a boundary line under an acquiescence theory, one of the most important factors is whether the parties attempted and intended to place the fence as near the dividing line as possible.”
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
11 Norgong v. Whitehead, 225 Minn. 379, 383, (noting that this standard applies to adverse property disputes between siblings).
Lowell v. Plooster v. Julie M. Nelson, and third party v. Mark Plooster, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lowell v. Plooster v. Julie M. Nelson, and third party v. Mark Plooster, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The question of public dedication is one of fact, and a [district] court’s determination on the matter will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous.”
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Additionally, when such original use is permissive, “it would be presumed to continue as permissive, rather than hostile, until the contrary was affirmatively shown.”
In the Matter of the Petition of George K. Lovrien for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of George K. Lovrien for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A [district] court determination as to a disputed boundary is one of fact, and will be accorded the same deference as factual determinations in other cases.”
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Minnwest Bank Litigation Concerning Real Property in Otsego, Minnesota, Minnwest Bank v. RTB, LLC 873 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Here, the district court ordered RTB to convey title to Minnwest of “that portion of Outlot M parallel to a line extending ten feet from the farthest encroachment onto Outlot M.” Minnwest contends that RTB’s request for conveyance damages is directly contrary to not only Ziebarth but to two other encroachment cases decided after Ziebarth—
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
“When a fence is 10 claimed to represent a boundary line under an acquiescence theory, one of the most important factors is whether the parties attempted and intended to place the fence as near the dividing line as possible.”
In the Matter of the Petition of Melvin J. Cummins for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Petition of Melvin J. Cummins for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
in which the supreme court stated, “When a fence is claimed to represent a boundary line under an acquiescence theory, one of the most important factors is whether the parties attempted and intended to place the fence as near the dividing line as possible.” Id.
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
No. 300, LaCrescent, -78 (Minn.1990); *47 Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508 , 515 n. 11, , 870 n. 11 (1969); McCormack , 278 Minn, at 343, d at 503 .
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space”); -07 (Minn.1980) (discussing similarities between statutory and common-law dedication as both demonstrating the landowner’s intent “to have his land appropriated and devoted to a public use, and an acceptance of that use by the public”).
Ruikkie v. Nall 798 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ruikkie v. Nall 798 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
When a survey is made of property that was subject to a United States government survey, “the aim of the resurvey must be to retrace and relocate the lines and corners of the original survey.”
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Barth v. Stenwick 761 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The one *511 seeking to prove a common-law dedication must show the landowner’s intent, express or implied, to have his land appropriated and devoted to a public use, and an acceptance of that use by the public.” -07 (Minn.1980).
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
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The dissent does point to one Minnesota boundary-by-practical-location case, which it describes as “illustrating] that a district court has discretion to fashion an equitable remedy in a boundary-dispute case based on the particular facts of the case.” Wojahn neither holds nor implies that a district court may withhold the legal effect of a new boundary after a party has prevailed
Rixmann v. City of Prior Lake 723 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rixmann v. City of Prior Lake 723 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
At oral argument before this court, the city argued for the first time that road maintenance cannot be sufficient for dedication if the road authority did not intend for dedication to occur
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Norgong v. Whitehead, 225 Minn. 879 , 383, (siblings) (citations omitted); (siblings).
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 Gifford, 245 Minn. at 436 , d at 628 (no acquiescence when disseizor believes line of rocks to be boundary line but never asserts it as the boundary to adjacent landowner); (erecting fence for uncertain purpose did not establish acquiescence); (constructing fence to restrain cattle, rather than as boundary line, did not establish acquiescence).
Boldt v. Roth 618 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2000
Boldt v. Roth 618 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2000
Boldt v. Roth 604 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Boldt v. Roth 604 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
adverse * * * (quoting Norgong v. Whitehead, 225 Minn. 379, 383 , ).
Sackett v. Storm 480 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Sackett v. Storm 480 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Matter of Zahradka 472 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Matter of Zahradka 472 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Town of Wahnena v. Dorholt 465 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Town of Wahnena v. Dorholt 465 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1991