Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gabler v. Fedoruk

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 14, 2008No. A08-0517Published

1DissentJohnson, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the court. A district court sitting in equity has broad discretion to fashion an equitable remedy based on the particular facts of a given case. In this case, the district court granted the Gablers a prescriptive easement that would allow them to continue using the driveway that connects their home to the nearest public road. I would conclude that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion when it granted the Gablers that equitable remedy and declined to grant the broader equitable remedy of a boundary by practical location.

In describing…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Tennessee Valley Authority v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Grupo Mexicano De Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. Nadeau v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  5. Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API