Cited by

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

91 citing documents.

In re the Estate of: Barbara Jean LaPoint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If there is reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings, we will not disturb them.”
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Curtis v. Christopher John Hanna Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark G. Warrington v. Donald E. Falk, Robert A. Schmaltz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christina Wagner v. Mark Sowl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If there is reasonable 4 evidence to support the district court’s findings, we will not disturb them.”
KBW Associates, Inc. v. W.L. Hall Co. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
P. 52.01, “we view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the district court.”
In re the Matter of: C. O. v. John and Jackie Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Guava LLC, Michael Dugas v. Spencer Merkel, Qwest Communications Corporation, Respondents,John Doe 173.23.48.174, John Doe 24.111.103.45, John Doe … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In doing so here, we are mindful that “circumstantial evidence is entitled to as much weight as any other evidence.”
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Pamela Andreas Stisser Grantor Trust 818 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 2012
Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous unless we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (citation omitted).
Hebert v. CITY OF FIFTY LAKES 784 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Sampair v. Village of Birchwood 784 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2010
See Caroga Realty Co., 274 Minn. at 178 , d at 225 ; (discussing elements needed to establish adverse possession).
In Re Estate of Butler 782 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-58 (Minn.1999) (reversing this court’s determination that the evidence presented to the district court was “too vague and indefinite” to prove a fact by clear and convincing evidence, and emphasizing that a reviewing court should uphold a factual finding so long as there is reasonable evidence to support it).
Gellert v. Eginton 770 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
And “[i]f there is reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings, we will not disturb them.”
Oliver v. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation 760 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes 744 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2008
(listing elements of adverse possession).
Brickner v. ONE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 742 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Revocable Trust of Margolis 731 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Soohoo v. Johnson 731 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2007
Pillandco, Inc. v. State 718 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
West St. Paul Federation of Teachers v. Independent School District No. 197 713 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Magnuson v. Cossette 707 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Busch v. Model Corp. 708 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck 704 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gada v. Dedefo 684 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Claussen v. City of Lauderdale 681 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
*727 “[T]he elements of proof required to establish a prescriptive easement are the same as those necessary to establish adverse possession.”
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re Estate of King 668 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wajda v. Kingsbury 652 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that district court’s factual findings must be clearly erroneous to warrant reversal).
Rodgers v. Knauff 649 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2002
In Re Custody of NAK 649 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 2002
New Market Township v. City of New Market 648 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Lambert v. Bongard 648 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(for adverse possession one must maintain continuous, actual possession of the property in a manner that is open, exclusive, and hostile).
Heuer v. County of Aitkin 645 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
4 underscores legal differences between the concepts of adverse possession and prescriptive easements.
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman 642 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Boldt, d at 396 ("A prescriptive easement claim involves the same elements of proof as an adverse possession claim, subject to the inherent differences between such claims.”); Alstad, 228 Minn. at 311 , d at 375 (noting in dictum that a rebuttable presumption of hostility may aid an adverse-possession claimant unless the claimant is merely using the presumption to show actual or continuous use).
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(holding that even significant errors, if clerical in nature, may be corrected by the district court nunc pro tunc).
Chancellor Manor v. Thibodeaux 628 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“If there is reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings, we will not disturb them.” (citation omitted).
Estate of Whish v. Bienfang 622 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(holding that trial court’s factual findings must be clearly erroneous or “manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole” to warrant reversal) (quoting Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Products, Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201
Boldt v. Roth 618 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2000
Denman v. Gans 607 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“The elements necessary to establish adverse possession * * * require a showing that the property has been used in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive and hostile manner for 15 years.”
Boldt v. Roth 604 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2000

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by