Pell v. Nelson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Otis, Justice.
The issue raised on this appeal is whether the mechanical means employed by plaintiffs for gathering and disposing of surface water and releasing it so that it flows across defendant’s adjoining property is an unreasonable use of plaintiffs’ land. The trial court held that it was and we affirm.
The plaintiffs Pell own 360 acres of farmland in Freeborn County, of which a so-called “Krai 40” was purchased in 1967. Defendant, Kobert Nelson, in 1962 acquired 77% acres immediately to the east and below the Pell property. Prior to the construction of the drainage system which…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sheehan v. FlynnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Enderson v. KelehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Collins v. WicklandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Kallevig v. HolmgrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Erhard v. WagnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Nygaard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Highview North Apartments v. County of RamseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Miles v. City of OakdaleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Duevel v. JennissenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Evers v. WillabyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.