Neumann v. Anderson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- Swogger v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Petraborg v. ZontelliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Carlson v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Koenig v. LudoweseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- 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
- Wendy Sills v. Kevin ThomesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2025