DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sheehan v. Flynn, 61 N.W. 462.

97 citing documents.

  • Teresa M. Hintze, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    P’d 50, 54 (Minn. App. 2014); (recognizing principles of the doctrine as early as 1894).
  • Victor Legatt v. Dennis Legatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Victor Legatt v. Dennis Legatt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    59 Minn. 436, 451, 61 N.W.
  • Matter v. Nelson 478 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Matter v. Nelson 478 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    see Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 441 , 61 N.W.
  • In re County of Douglas Joint County Ditch No. 4 419 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • In re County of Douglas Joint County Ditch No. 4 419 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W.
  • Terfehr v. Kleinfehn 352 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Terfehr v. Kleinfehn 352 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W.
  • Highview North Apartments v. County of Ramsey 323 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1982
  • Miles v. City of Oakdale 323 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1982
  • Miles v. City of Oakdale 323 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1982
    See Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W.
  • Highview North Apartments v. County of Ramsey 323 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 1982
    This is the doctrine of “reasonable use,” which goes back at least to the leading case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W.
  • Pell v. Nelson 201 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1972
  • Pell v. Nelson 201 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1972
    Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , Krupke v. Stockard, 103 Minn. 349 , Erhard v. Wagner, 104 Minn. 258 , Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163 , Collins v. Wickland, 251 Minn. 419 , Kallevig v. Holmgren, 293 Minn. 193
  • Kallevig v. Holmgren 197 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 1972
  • Kallevig v. Holmgren 197 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 1972
    The special interrogatories 2 and the *197 trial court’s instructions to the jury were based upon the principle commonly called the reasonable-use rule announced by this court in Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436
  • Stevens v. State, by Head 190 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1971
  • Stevens v. State, by Head 190 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1971
    Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , .
  • Sachs v. Chiat 162 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1968
  • Sachs v. Chiat 162 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1968
    As this court stated in Collins v. Wickland, 251 Minn. 419, 425 , 88 N. W. (2d) 83 , 87: “* * * Since Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, Minnesota has adhered to the reasonable-use rule.
  • Collins v. Wickland 88 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1958
  • Collins v. Wickland 88 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1958
    12 Since Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, Minnesota has adhered to the reasonable-use rule.
  • In Re Petition of Lippmann 81 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1957
  • In Re Petition of Lippmann 81 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1957
    4 Appellants cite as controlling cases In re Petition for County Ditch No. 53, Chippewa County, supra; Lupkes v. Town of Clifton, 157 Minn. 493 , ; Erhard v. Wagner, 104 Minn. 258 , *14 ; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632.
  • Johnson v. Agerbeck 77 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1956
  • Johnson v. Agerbeck 77 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1956
    Defendants rely upon the well-known rule as to the disposition of surface waters enunciated in Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, and also rely upon and cite Enderson v. Kelehan, supra, as authority for their position due to their claim that the Enderson case presents facts similar to those in the instant case.
  • Braun v. County of Renville 70 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
  • Braun v. County of Renville 70 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1955
    See, Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632; In re Improvement of County Ditch No. 1, Yellow Medicine County, 241 Minn. 6 , 62 N. W. (2d) 80 .
  • In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 1, Yellow Medicine County 62 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1954
  • In Re Improvement of County Ditch No. 1, Yellow Medicine County 62 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1954
    This is clearly permissible under the rule announced in Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, that a landowner has the right to drain, by natural or artificial means, the surface water off of his land onto the land of another as long as it is done in a reasonable manner so as not to unnecessarily injure his neighbor’s land.
  • Seidlitz v. County of Faribault 55 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1952
  • Seidlitz v. County of Faribault 55 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1952
    Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, is still the law of this state; and, where a landowner, with such aid as he can obtain from the application of the rules announced in that case, may dispose of his surface water as freely before the construction of the drain as after, it is difficult to see how he has sustained any be
  • Northern Natural Gas Co. v. County of Blue Earth 47 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 1951
  • Northern Natural Gas Co. v. County of Blue Earth 47 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 1951
    As pointed out in In re Town Ditch No. 1, 208 Minn. 566, 568 , , the right of natural drainage and flowage of surface waters considered by this court in Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, relates exclusively to private rights and activities and is not applicable to public drainage proceedings which are for the public benefit.
  • Enderson v. Kelehan 32 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1948
  • Enderson v. Kelehan 32 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1948
    As promulgated in the leading case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, and as amplified by subsequent decisions, the rule is that in effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate purpose a landowner, acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface *168 waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries
  • Will v. Boler 4 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1942
  • Will v. Boler 4 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1942
    In the circumstances presented; we think that Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, and the many subsequent cases following it, furnish adequate support for the trial court’s order.
  • In Re Town Ditch No. 1 295 N.W. 47 Minn. 1940
  • Larson v. Busse 295 N.W. 47 Minn. 1940
  • Larson v. Busse 295 N.W. 47 Minn. 1940
    the jury awarded Busse $100 as damages, under instruction that he could recover on no other ground, that he was “not entitled to recover any damages for the water that is drained onto him by reason of the construction of this ditch.” *568 Direction of the verdicts against three of the landowners and the indicated limitation of Busse’s damages were put upon the familiar rule of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632.
  • In Re Town Ditch No. 1 295 N.W. 47 Minn. 1940
    *Page 568 Direction of the verdicts against three of the landowners and the indicated limitation of Busse's damages were put upon the familiar rule of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W.
  • Bush v. City of Rochester 255 N.W. 256 Minn. 1934
  • Bush v. City of Rochester 255 N.W. 256 Minn. 1934
    Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436, 442 , , 26 L. R. A. 632.
  • Simonson v. Township of Alden 231 N.W. 921 Minn. 1930
  • Simonson v. Township of Alden 231 N.W. 921 Minn. 1930
    R. 470; Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632; Erhard v. Wagner, 104 Minn. 258 , ; Peterson v. Lundquist, 106 Minn. 339 , ; Howard v. Illinois Cent.
  • Roosevelt Irrigation District v. Beardsley Land & Investment Co. 282 P. 937 Ariz. 1929
  • Sandmeier v. Town of St. James 205 N.W. 634 Minn. 1925
  • Sandmeier v. Town of St. James 205 N.W. 634 Minn. 1925
    Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632.