Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lindberg v. Fasching, 667 N.W.2d 481.

17 citing documents.

Jerry M. Gelao, et al v. Zumbro Township Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Susan Neegard v. Valley Golf Association Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that an “express grant creating [an] easement is a contract” and applying contract principles to interpret an easement), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
In re the Matter of the Application of State of Minnesota to Register the Title to Certain Land Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The scope of an easement created by an express grant depends “entirely upon the construction of the terms of the easement agreement.” (quotation 15 omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Benchmark Investments, LLC v. Jennifer Mark, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
at 643; (“The initial determination as to whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law.”), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Scott Lee Neiman, et al., Chuck Otremba v. Cela Sandin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that an easement agreement is a contract), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Dellwood Farm, LLC v. City of Grant Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Keith D. Bexell, et al v. Jonathan Brand, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
William O. Bradley v. Cody J. Haislet, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Nov.
Robert Jensen, et al v. Carl Rindelaub, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lindberg v. Fasching , review denied (Minn. Nov.
William M. Dunkley, et al v. Greg W. Hueler, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Lindberg v. Fasching , review denied (Minn. Nov.
Glen M. Palecek, et al v. Rushford-Peterson, Independent School District No. 239, third party plaintiff, Moonyeen Claire Holle, … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that an “express grant creating the easement is a contract”) , review denied (Minn. Nov.
Jeffrey Apitz, et al v. Terry Hopkins, et al 863 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey Apitz, et al v. Terry Hopkins, et al 863 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
defines the scope and extent of the interest in land.”); Bergh & Misson Farms, (“[T]he extent of an easement should not be enlarged by legal construction beyond the objects originally contemplated or expressly agreed upon by the parties.” (quotation omitted)); (stating that “[t]he express grant creating [an] easement is a contract,” and its scope depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the easement agreement), review denied (Minn. Nov.
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Graves v. Wayman 816 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
486, 488 (1911) (noting that plaintiffs actual possession of property “was notice to all the world of his rights”); Lindberg v. Fasching, M.D., (citing Farmers’ State Bank v. Cunningham, 182 Minn. 244, 246 , 234 N.W.
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
a case in which the court of appeals traced the evolution of the MTA possession standard and articulated a standard in the context of easements.