Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Faust v. EGAN McKAY ELECTRICAL CO., 618 N.W.2d 393.

14 citing documents.

Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Nancy L. Holzer, as Trustee of the Nancy L. Holzer Trust dated September 2, 2005, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, (transfer of servient estate to a third-party stranger severed prior permissive use by dominant estate).
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, Rogers, d at 654; Oliver v. State ex rel.
Roger Saba, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Such differences arise from the distinction “between possessing the land for adverse possession and using the land for a prescriptive easement.” (emphasis added).
James Aeshliman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A prescriptive easement claimant must prove by clear and convi ncing evidence that the property for which she is requesting the easement was used in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile manner for 15 years.” (quotation omitted).
James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“A prescriptive easement claim involves the same elements of proof as an adverse possession claim .
John Aydt, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of the Application of Susan L. C. Mahoney to Register the Title to Certain … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When a person claiming prescriptive easement “proves actual, open, continuous, and exclusive use, then hostility of the use is presumed.”
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Roger Ochsner v. Relco Unisystems Corporation, and RELCO, LLC v. A. Kent Keller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation 760 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(contrasting hostile and permissive); Burns v. Plachecki, 301 Minn. 445, 449-50 , (concluding a use that may have been permissive was not proven to be hostile); Lustmann v. Lustmann, 204 Minn. 228, 231 , 283 N.W.
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes 744 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2008
A prescriptive easement requires the same elements, but a difference exists “between possessing the land for adverse possession and using the land for a prescriptive easement.” (emphasis added).
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Bur ns v. Plachecki, 301 Minn. 445, 448 , -36 (1974); Alstad v. Boyer, 228 Minn. 307, 310 , Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 507 , Stapf v. Wobbrock, 171 Minn. 358, 360 , 214 N