Legal Opinion

Lanpher v. Nygard

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 22, 2013No. A12-1419Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOOTEN, Judge.

Appellant argues that the district court erred by holding that a fence that is located on respondents’ property but that runs along the property line with appellant’s property, is not a partition fence. Appellant further argues that, because the fence is a partition fence, applicable law affords him the legal right to unilaterally paint and repair the fence without respondents’ consent or knowledge. Because appellant failed to show that the fence at issue is a partition fence or that he complied with the requirements of the partition fence statute, we affirm.

FACTS

The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McClay v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  2. Oxborough v. BoesserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
  3. Miles v. AlthoffCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  4. Brom v. KalmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Rice v. KringlerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API