Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jared James Sprowls Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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.”).
Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, et al., Janet Bowen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, et al., Janet Bowen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Hader Properties, LLC, et al v. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Application of Timothy D. Moratzka, Trustee of the Nancy L. Mayen Residual Trust Minn. 2023
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.
Russel D. Stueckrath, et al v. Charles Stueckrath, State Bank of Bellingham, et al., vs. Russel Stueckrath, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Dellwood Farm, LLC v. City of Grant Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Ross R. Lundstrom, et al v. Township of Florence, State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.
In the Matter of the Application of Timothy D. Moratzka, Trustee of the Nancy L. Mayen Residual Trust Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
LaPlant Properties, Inc. v. State of Minnesota, City of Buffalo, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.”
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
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.").
Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
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."
A16-1527 Minn. 2018
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.” ( )).
In re Welfare of the Child of R.K. 901 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2017
In re Welfare of the Child of R.K. 901 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2017
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
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation 900 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2017
421 n.6 (Minn. 2004) (explaining that considerations in an opinion that are unnecessary to the decision are dicta).
Isanti Pines Tree Farm, LLC v. Arthur J. Swanson, Julie A. Swanson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Considerations made in a judicial opinion that are unnecessary to the decision in the case are dicta.” n.6 (Minn. 2004).
William O. Bradley v. Carol M. Kelley, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
William O. Bradley v. Carol M. Kelley, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.
In re the Welfare of R.S. 805 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2011
City of Willmar v. Kvam 769 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
City of Willmar v. Kvam 769 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(discussing “right of way” in the context of railways).