Legal Opinion

Neumann v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 30, 2018No. A17-1450PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Pronschinske and her husband appeal.

ISSUE

Did the district court err by granting the Neumanns' motion to set aside the referees' report, by denying the Pronschinskes' motion to confirm the referees' report, and by determining that the two parcels should be partitioned in kind so that each of the three cotenants owns an equal number of acres of the property?

ANALYSIS

The Pronschinskes argue that the district court erred by setting aside and not confirming the referees' report. Specifically, they argue that the district court erred by not giving deference to the referees' findings and by reasoning…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Swogger v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  2. Petraborg v. ZontelliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  3. Carlson v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Koenig v. LudoweseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  5. Rheiner v. Stillwater Street Railway & Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1882

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wendy Sills v. Kevin ThomesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API