Cited by

See 14 n.1 (Minn. App. 1991) (stating that, under the common law, an easement holder is “responsible for any damage resulting from a failure to maintain or repair an easement, absent any separate agreement”); see also Bergh & Misson Farms, -27 (Minn. 1997) (discussing an easement holder’s liability for damages based on an agreement between the parties).

Gas Co., d 578, 580 (Minn. 1998); see also Bergh & Misson Farms

The extent of an easement “depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant.” Bergh & Misson Farms, (quotation omitted).

“The parameters of an easement created by a grant depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant.” Bergh & Mission Farms, (quotation omitted).

“The parameters of an easement created by a grant depend entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant.” Bergh & Misson Farms, (quotation omitted).

“When the terms of an easement grant are unclear, extrinsic evidence may be used to aid in the interpretation of the easement grant; however, when the language granting the easement is clear and unambiguous, the court’ s power to determine the extent of th e easement granted is limited.” Bergh & Misson Farms, Inc. v. Great Lakes Transmission Co. , d 23, 26 (Minn. 1997).

A district court has “broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of ev idence and the [district] court’ s rulings should not be disturbed by a reviewing court unless the rulings constitute a clear abuse of discretion or are based on an erroneous view of the law.” Bergh & Misson Farms

The scope of an express easement “depends entirely upon the cons truction of the terms of the grant.” Bergh & Mission Farms, Inc. v. Great Lakes Transmission, Inc., (quotatio n omitted).

“The parameters of an easement created by a grant depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant.” Bergh & Misson Farms, (quotation omitted).

A district court has “broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of evidence and the [district] court’s rulings should not be disturbed by a reviewing court unless the rulings constitute a clear 8 abuse of discretion or are based on an erroneous view of the law.” Bergh & Misson Farms, Inc. v. Great Lakes Transmission Co .

“The parameters of an easement created by a grant depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant.” Bergh & Miss on Farms, (quotation omitted).

Generally, a district court has “broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of evidence and the [district] court’s rulings should not be disturbed by a reviewing court unless the rulings constitute a clear abuse of discretion or are based on an erroneous view of the law.” Bergh & Misson Farms

The supreme court has also stated that “[i]f an easement holder expressly agrees to pay for damages to the servient property as a result of exercising the rights under the easement grant, then the easement holder is liable for such damages without regard to negligence.” Bergh & Misson Farms, (quotation omitted).

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] easemen

See Bergh & Misson Farms, (defining the scope of an easement created by grant by construction of the terms of the grant).

“When the terms of an easement grant are unclear, extrinsic evidence may be used to aid in the interpretation of the easement grant; however, when the language granting the easement is clear and unambiguous, the court’s power to determine the extent of the easement granted is limited.” Bergh and Misson Farms