Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Morse v. Zeize, 24 N.W. 287.

29 citing documents.

Sackett v. Storm 480 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Security Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. C & C Investments, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Security Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. C & C Investments, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
evidence conflicts “as to whether the owner intended to dedicate and whether the public accepted the dedication, then the ultimate question of dedication is peculiarly one for the finder of fact.” Flynn , 257 Minn, at 540, d at 291 ; see also Daugherty v. Sowers, 243 Minn. 572, 575 , Keiter v. Berge, 219 Minn. 374, 380 , Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35, 38 , 24 N.W.
Bengtson v. Village of Marine on St. Croix 246 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1976
Bengtson v. Village of Marine on St. Croix 246 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1976
Flynn v. Beisel, 257 Minn. 531, 541 , Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35, 37
Allen v. Village of Savage 112 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1961
Allen v. Village of Savage 112 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1961
4 See, also, Metalak v. Rasmussen, 184 Minn. 260 , ; Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , ; Boye v. City of Albert Lea, 93 Minn. 121 , ; Carpenter v. Gantzer, 164 Minn. 105 , ; Keiter v. Berge, 219 Minn. 374 , 18 N. W. (2d) 35 .
Flynn v. Beisel 102 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1960
Flynn v. Beisel 102 N.W.2d 284 Minn. 1960
Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35, 37 , .
Mueller v. Drobny 31 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1948
Mueller v. Drobny 31 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1948
Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , ; Carpenter v. Gantzer, 164 Minn. 105 , ; Metalak v. Rasmussen, 184 Minn. 260 , ; Dickinson v. Ruble, 211 Minn. 373 , 1 N. W. (2d) 373 ; Keiter v. Berge, 219 Minn. 374 , 18 N. W. (2d) 35 .
Keiter v. Berge 18 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1945
Keiter v. Berge 18 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1945
Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 44 Minn. 149 , ; from the owner’s recognition of a need for the highway in question, Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; and from his recognition of the validity of the public’s claim to the highway after it was used as such.
Carpenter v. Gantzer 204 N.W. 550 Minn. 1925
Carpenter v. Gantzer 204 N.W. 550 Minn. 1925
Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , .
Jungels v. Schramel 197 N.W. 99 Minn. 1924
Jungels v. Schramel 197 N.W. 99 Minn. 1924
Paul, 83 Minn. 401 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , ; Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Case v. Favier, 32 Minn. 48 (89); Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Jeppson v. Almquist 103 N.W. 10 Minn. 1905
Jeppson v. Almquist 103 N.W. 10 Minn. 1905
Paul, 12 Minn. 116 (192); Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Ellsworth v. Lord, 40 Minn. 337 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , ; Hansen v. Town of Verdi, 83 Minn. 44 , .
Boye v. City of Albert Lea 100 N.W. 642 Minn. 1904
Boye v. City of Albert Lea 100 N.W. 642 Minn. 1904
The question as to the common-law dedication is ordinarily and peculiarly for the practical judgment of a jury, or, as said in Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , : “The questions of the intention of the landowner, of the significance of his conduct in the premises, and of the public acceptance, are addressed in a rather unusual degree to the plain common sense of a jury, to their knowledge of human nature, and *123 their observation of the way things are ordinar
Hurley v. City of West St. Paul 86 N.W. 427 Minn. 1901
Hurley v. City of West St. Paul 86 N.W. 427 Minn. 1901
Paul, 12 Minn. 116 (192); Case v. Favier, 12 Minn. 48 (89); Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ; Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381 , .
St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 46 N.W. 324 Minn. 1890
St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. City of Minneapolis 46 N.W. 324 Minn. 1890
Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.
Ellsworth v. Lord 42 N.W. 389 Minn. 1889
Ellsworth v. Lord 42 N.W. 389 Minn. 1889
Much of it is of the character specially mentioned in Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35, 37 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.
Skjeggerud v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 35 N.W. 572 Minn. 1887
Skjeggerud v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. 35 N.W. 572 Minn. 1887
As was remarked by Justice Berry in Morse v. Zeize, 34 Minn. 35 , ( 24 N. W. Rep.