Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ebenhoh v. Hodgman, 642 N.W.2d 104.

30 citing documents.

Nancy L. Holzer, as Trustee of the Nancy L. Holzer Trust dated September 2, 2005, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Hostility is flexibly determined by examining the character of the possession and the acts of ownership of the occupant.” d 104, 110-11 (Minn. App. 2002) (quotation omitted).
Dale LeRoy Tiede v. County of Le Sueur, Daniel J. Sullivan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dale LeRoy Tiede v. County of Le Sueur, Daniel J. Sullivan, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, ‘without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the [adverse claimant], but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.’” ().
Matthew Lalone v. Daniel Joseph Duerst Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Matthew Lalone v. Daniel Joseph Duerst Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, ‘without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.’” 6 ().
Mary Ann Karnowski v. Thomas George Wimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Mary Ann Karnowski v. Thomas George Wimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lyle Batton, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.2 (Minn. App. 2002) (analyzing Boldt and stating that supreme court “ has at least implicitly suggested that this p resumption a pplies in adverse -possession cases, ” but declining to address issue because appellants did not argue they were entitled to presumption).
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams, petitioner, Appellant, 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
Paul M. Dobis v. David L. Scegura, Trustee of the David L. Scegura Trust, David Catlin, Patricia Ann … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But this court construes evidence presented in support of adverse possession strictly, “without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.” d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 2002) (quotation omitted).
In re the Matter of the Application of Susan L. C. Mahoney to Register the Title to Certain … 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
“In boundary-line cases, the findings of the district court will not be disturbed unless the evidence taken as a whole furnishes no substantial support for them or where it is manifestly or palpably contrary to the findings.” (quotation omitted).
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“But whether the findings of fact support a district court’s conclusions of law and judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
Randal v. Johnson v. Robert A. Fischer, County of Sibley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Randal v. Johnson v. Robert A. Fischer, County of Sibley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“But whether the findings of fact support a district court’s conclusions of law 3 and judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
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
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
In re Beachside I Homeowners Ass'n 802 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In re Beachside I Homeowners Ass'n 802 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“But whether the findings of fact support a district court’s conclusions of law and judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 763 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen 763 N.W.2d 42 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
(reviewing de novo whether the district court erred by concluding that disseizor had proven adverse possession and repeating the court’s duty to determine whether the findings support the district court’s judgment).
Ganje v. Schuler 659 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ganje v. Schuler 659 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“But whether the findings of fact support a district court’s conclusions of law and judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo.”