Legal Opinion · Dissent

Burgmeier v. Bjur

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided June 20, 1995No. CX-94-2252Published

1DissentHarvey A. Holtan, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Even though Bjur entered under a writ from the unlawful de-tainer court, he did so at the risk the court would ultimately find his title invalid. Because Bjur interfered with the Burgmeiers’ beneficial rights to use their property, they now have a claim in trespass to recover mesne profits.

The district court and the majority invoke collateral estoppel arising out of the unlawful detainer action. This application is misplaced as the issues determined in an unlawful detainer action and in a trespass action are not the same. See Cole v. Paulson, 380 N.W.2d 215, 218…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Parker v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  2. Rauma v. BaileySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  3. Sanborn v. SturtevantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
  4. Blew v. RitzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
  5. Cole v. PaulsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

3 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