Cited by

Dodds, 2009 WL 1046356, at *5 (rejecting Bjork’s statement that obstructing legal process requires specific intent as dicta); n.6 (Minn. 2004) (“Considerations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta.”).

The MTA generally provides that an interest subject to the Act “cannot be asserted against a claim of title based on a source of title unless the interest is preserved by filing a notice within 40 years of the creation of the interest.” Minn. Stat. § 541.023, subds.

To achieve this purpose, the MTA provides that no interest can “be asserted against a claim of title based on a source of title unless the interest is preserved by filing a notice within 40 years of the creation of the interest.” d 414, 427 (Minn. 2004).

“The declared policy of the Marketable Title Act is to prevent restrictions on uses [of land] that have not been reasserted as a matter of record within the last 40 years from ‘fettering the marketability of title.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 541.023, subd.

To achieve this purpose, th e MTA provides that no interest can “be asserted against a claim of title based on a source of title unless the interest is preserved by filing a notice within 40 years of the creation of the interest.” d 414, 427 (Minn. 2004).

When determining what interest passed through a deed, we “look to the deed to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties to th e instrument.”

See State v. Hess , , 421 n.6 (Minn. 2004) ("Considerations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta.").

See State v. Hess , , 421 n.6 (Minn. 2004) ("Considerations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta."

See State v. Hess , n.6 (Minn. 2004) (“Conside rations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta.” ( )).

We did not decide whether one form of service or the other was controlling because the appellant's "appeal from notice served by fax was still timely.” Id.; , 421 n.6 (Minn. 2004) ("Considerations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta.”); State Bank of Rose Creek v. Commerce Comm’n, (holding that the longer appeal period, from a judgment, controlled over the shorter appeal period in a certior

421 n.6 (Minn. 2004) (explaining that considerations in an opinion that are unnecessary to the decision are dicta).

“Considerations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta.” n.6 (Minn. 2004).

An easement is “an entitlement to the use or 4 enjoyment of the land rather than an interest in the real property itself,” and it does not confer an exclusive right of possession, Sampair v. Vill.

(discussing “right of way” in the context of railways).