Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Emmans v. West Publishing Corp., 603 N.W.2d 650.

91 citing documents.

Richard L. Greenstreet v. Central Minnesota Educational Research & Development Council, Lowell Haagenson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Matter of the Application of State of Minnesota to Register the Title to Certain Land Minn. Ct. App. 2026
To establish a prescriptive easement, a party must prove “by clear and convincing evidence” use of someone else’s land “in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile manner for 15 years.”
In the Matter of: Marineisy Jimenez Rosario v. Robert Eliazar Villanueva Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Renee Hogendorf v. James J. Green, Jr., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Jaguar Communications, LLC (A25-0090) v. Daniel Petsinger (A25-0025) Minn. Ct. App. 2025
By contrast, a prescriptive easement, obtained through adverse possession, “is based on prior continuous use and grants a right to use the property of another.”
Nancy L. Holzer, as Trustee of the Nancy L. Holzer Trust dated September 2, 2005, et al v. … 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
Dale LeRoy Tiede, et al v. County of Le Sueur, et al., Daniel J. Sullivan 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
In re the Marriage of: Donald Floyd Deeble, Jr. v. Hayley Elizabeth Espelien Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Paul Herlache, Minn. 2023
We therefore examine the record in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Jay Tody Construction, LLC v. Justin Schlegel, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“In applying this rule, w e view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.” Rogers v. Moore
Wayne O’Connor (A21-1313) (A21-1320) v. Byron O’Connor (A21-1313) (A21-1320) Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ramsey County Attorney v. $139,630.00 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Clear and convincing evidence may include circumstantial evidence which “is entitled to as much weight as any other evide nce.”
In the Matter of: Heather Lorraine Drinkwater, and obo minor child, Michael Guy Drinkwater Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An OFP may be reversed for insufficient evidence only if the district court's findings are "clearly erroneous or 'manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.'" (d 650, 656 (Minn. 1999)).
Roger Saba v. Roger Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Wat Lao Sirithammaram, Inc., et al v. Mark Vinath Saythong, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In applying Rule 52.01, “we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.”
LVNV Funding, LLC v. Joionda Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
John Koppi v. Robin Marsh, XYZ Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“If there is reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings, we will not disturb them.”
In re the Marriage of: Samantha Magdalena Hansen v. Richard Bradley Hansen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We will not disturb a district court’s factual findings if reasonable evidence supports them , and reverse only if the findings are “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole,” (quotation omitted).
Little Earth of United Tribes Housing Corp. v. Rose Marie Rojas, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Greta Mae Markuson, n/k/a Greta Mae Garcia v. Brenden Peter Markuson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Timberland Partners, Inc. v. Harriet Liedtke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ren Xu, et al v. Scott E. Sterling Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And “we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.”
Franz J. Metzger v. Thomas Stearns, et al., Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union, et al., Itasca County Minn. Ct. App. 2019
road to enter [his] Property for any purpose for a period of 15 continuous years or more.” A prescriptive easement is based upon “prior continuous use” and “require[s] a showing that the property has been used in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile manner for 15 years.” -57 (Minn. 1999) (emphasis added).
Al Dressely, et al v. CAL Properties, LLC, d/b/a Inver Grove Auto Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kathy Roe v. Rolanda Schmidt, Roger Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Alissa Boehm v. Melanie Glick, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
P. 52.01, “we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.” Rogers v. Moore
Heritage Bank v. Gary D. Stortenbecker Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 52.01, this court views “the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.”
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling, d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[W]e view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.”
In the Matter of: Kari Dale Hickey v. Dirk Anthony Hummel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Estate of: Prince Rogers Nelson, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“If there is reas onable evidence to support the district court’s findings, we will not disturb them.” Rogers v. Moore
Souhsiung Jack Chiu v. Timbershore Home Owners’ Association and third party plaintiff, vs. New Horizon Homes, Inc., Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In applying this rule, “we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.”
Marshall Municipal Utilities v. Donald J. DeLanghe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quotation and citation omitted).
James Michael Olsen, Krisann Jeanne Olsen v. James Robert Greger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quoting Rogers v. Moore , ).
In re: The Dale A. Johnson Trust Under Agreement Dated August 10, 2006 as Amended and Restated on … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous unless we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mis take has been made.” (citation omitted).
K&S Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC v. Jeremiah J. Kramer a/k/a Jeremy Kramer, XYZ Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul M. Dobis, et al v. David L. Scegura, Trustee of the David L. Scegura Trust, David Catlin, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of the Application of Susan L. C. Mahoney to Register the Title to Certain … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A prescriptive easement is based on prior continuous use and grants a right to use the property of another.”
WAF-2, LLC v. Lowry Building, LLC and third party plaintiff, vs. John R. Rupp, third party defendant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
Mark W. Besemann v. Roger T. Weber, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In applying this rule, we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.”
Randal V. Johnson, et al v. Robert A. Fischer, County of Sibley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION The party seeking to establish adverse possession must show by clear and convincing evidence “that the property has been used in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile manner for 15 years.” see Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2014).
Roxanne J. Soderholm v. Olivia Forar, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rather, the findings must be manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (citation and quotation omitted).
Joel Inskeep and Chelsea Inskeep and o/b/o L.I. and E.I. v. Sheila Moore, Harry Walk Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[Appellate courts] view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.”).
In the Matter of the Petition of George K. Lovrien for an Order Determining Boundary Lines Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Rather, we look to the record for evidence that could reasonably support the findings of the district court.”
Randall Norman, et al v. Crow Wing Cooperative Power & Light Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Knawon Antony Conda v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A finding is clearly erroneous if it is “not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
J. T. S v. S. L. V. B Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A finding is clearly erroneous if it is “not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
Charles Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Even if this court might view the evidence differently, it does not appear that the district court’s findings lacked evidentiary support or were “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (quotation omitted).
Roger E. Pederson v. Elizabeth J. Anderson, Chisago Lake Township, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2015
we look to the record for evidence that could reasonably support the findings of the district court.”