Legal Opinion

Vang v. Mount

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 19, 1974No. 44498PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Peterson, Justice.

Plaintiffs, Hilman M. Vang and Genevieve S. Vang, own land in Olmsted County subject to a mineral rights reservation in favor of prior owners. Having received an offer to purchase the land, plaintiffs brought the present action to obtain a declaratory judgment that sand, gravel, and limestone were not subject to the reservation. After several named and unnamed defendants answered, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and entered a judgment holding that limestone was not included within the reserved mineral rights.

In appealing from the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Donnay v. BoulwareSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  2. Fleming Foundation v. Texaco, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1960
  3. Whisler v. FindeisenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  4. Carlson v. Minnesota Land & Colonization Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
  5. Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Secretary of Army of United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1970

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Contos v. HerbstSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Vines v. McKenzie Methane Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1993
  3. Southern Title Insurance v. OllerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  4. W.S. Newell, Inc. v. RandallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1979
  5. Rysavy v. NovotnySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987

2 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