Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ganje v. Schuler, 659 N.W.2d 261.

29 citing documents.

Edward B. Berkner, Trustee of Berkner Living Trust, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“Whether the adverse possession elements have been established is a question of fact.”).
Nancy L. Holzer, as Trustee of the Nancy L. Holzer Trust dated September 2, 2005, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Whether the adverse possession elements have been established is a question of fact,” as is whether the elements of a prescriptive easement have been met
Stephen Sawyer, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The “fact -intensive adverse-possession determinations rely largely on the credibility of witnesses and the weight, if any, to be given to their testimony.”
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
Allen Logelin v. Randy J. Poynter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Allen Logelin v. Randy J. Poynter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Starbeck v. Gibson, 4 v. Schuler, (d 458, 462 (Minn. 1972)).
Matthew Lalone v. Daniel Joseph Duerst Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Matthew Lalone v. Daniel Joseph Duerst Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) ().
Mary Ann Karnowski v. Thomas George Wimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Mary Ann Karnowski v. Thomas George Wimmer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roger Saba, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Patricia Klug, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) ().
Lyle Batton, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ganje v. Schuler , d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) (citing Wortman v. Siedow, 216 N.W.
James A. Compart, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Moreover, the case relied upon by the district court, which suggests that an easement for ingress, egress, and utility purposes makes the Comparts’ farming of the land a permissive use.
John Aydt, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing Wortman v. Siedow, 173 Minn. 145, 148, 216 N.W.
Marshall Municipal Utilities, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[W]hether the findings of fact support a district court’s conclusions of law and judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Ganje v. Schuler , (quotation omitted).
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
DECISION Whether a claimant establishes the elements of adverse possession is a question of fact, and this court will not set aside factual findings unless the findings are “clearly erroneous,” Minn. R. Civ.
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
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
DECISION “Whether the adverse possession elements have been established is a question of fact.”
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
to support their contention that evidence of adverse possession must be strictly construed without the benefit of any inferences or presumptions.