Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bolen v. Glass, 755 N.W.2d 1.

25 citing documents.

Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
25 v. Glass, –5 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sylvester L. Zurn, individually and as beneficiary of the Sylvester L. Zurn Trust, dated December 30, 2002, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
802, 805 (Minn. 1940) (declining to consider claims where they were “based on a hypothetical state of facts”); rev’d on other grounds, (“[W]e must decide the case on the present facts .
Distinguished Robert Sanden, et al v. Jerame Tysdal, et al., Otter Tail Township Minn. Ct. App. 2024
21 The Ty sdals cite three cases, all of which are distinguishable: and McLafferty v. St.
In re Resolution Denying Stoick Creek, LLC’s Application for a Second Driveway Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re Resolution Denying Stoick Creek, LLC’s Application for a Second Driveway Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In its responsive brief, the town argues that Stoick Creek “does not have any right of access to Wells Lake Court, a plat-dedicated road, because the road inures to the benefit of the owners of the adjacent, platted property.” In support of this argument, and Gilbert v. Emerson, 61 N.W.
Hader Properties, LLC, et al v. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“[A]ny abutting landowner owns to the middle of the platted street .
Ross R. Lundstrom, et al v. Township of Florence, State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
471, 472 (Minn. 1892) (stating “where lots are conveyed in accordance with a town plat, the deed is presumed to include a grant of the soil to the center of the street, subject to the public easement.”); (“As to the ownership of the underlying fee interest, we have recognized that any abutting landowner owns to the middle of the platted street or alley and that the soil and its appurtenances, within the limits 9 of such street or alley, belong to the owner in fee, subject only to the right of th
In the Matter of the Application of Timothy D. Moratzka, Trustee of the Nancy L. Mayen Residual Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A plat dedicatio n operates as a “convey ance in trust to the municipality of a terminable easement only , in any area designated in the plat for public use, and the fee title thereto remains in th e dedicator, subject to the easement.” (emphasis added) ().
Patti Amanda’s Inc. v. City of Biwabik, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See id.; -5 (Minn. 2008) (“The general rule is that, in matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislatur e of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.”).
Ryan Carlson, et al v. Township of Livonia Minn. Ct. App. 2021
’” (quoting Etzler, d at 610).
Steven Schussler, et al v. City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A “public way dedicated or donated on a plat shall c onvey an easement only.” Id.; see also Bolen v. Glass , (concluding th at when land is transferred via plat dedication, the property intere st conveyed is a terminable easement).
Calm Waters, LLC, a Limited Liability Company under the laws of Minnesota v. Town of Kroschel, a political … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Chamber Commerce v. City of Minneapolis 928 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minn. Chamber Commerce v. City of Minneapolis 928 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bolen v. Glass , , 4-5 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 925 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Graco, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis 925 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bolen v. Glass , , 4-5 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
Kelbro Co. v. Vinny's On the River, LLC 893 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kelbro Co. v. Vinny's On the River, LLC 893 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
n Bolen v. Glass, this court affirmed the district court's grant of the original plaintiffs’ posttrial rule 15.02 motion to amend the complaint to add a plaintiff, reasoning in part that "[defendant]’s answer had alleged as an affirmative defense the [original plaintiffs’] failure to add [the new plaintiff] as an indispensable party.” rev'd on other grounds
Lowell V. Plooster, et al v. Julie M. Nelson and third party plaintiffs, vs. Mark Plooster, third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lowell V. Plooster, et al v. Julie M. Nelson and third party plaintiffs, vs. Mark Plooster, third party … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Dean v. City of Winona 843 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Dean v. City of Winona 843 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]n matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.” -5 (Minn.2008) (quotation omitted).
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Motokazie! Inc. v. Rice County 824 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
are presumed to be valid, and are not to be set aside by *345 the courts unless their invalidity is clear.’ ” (quoting State v. Taubert, 126 Minn. 871 , 372, 148 N.W.