Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hess

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 29, 2004No. C4-02-2049Published

1DissentBlatz, Chief Justice

Because I believe that Norton v. Duluth Transfer Ry., 129 Minn. 126, 151 N.W. 907 (1915), and Chicago Great W. R.R v. Zahner, 145 Minn. 312, 177 N.W. 350 (1920), are controlling and that the cases cited by the majority are distinguishable from this case in important respects, I respectfully dissent. As noted by the majority, the meaning our court accords “right of way” as used in the 1898 deed is outcome determinative because of the Marketable Title Act (hereinafter “MTA”), which is only applicable to and extinguishes interests that convey title, not easements. Minn. Stat. § 541.023 (2002).1…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Joy v. St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Brown v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Robert's River Rides, Inc. v. Steamboat Development Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1994
  4. Morsbach v. Thurston CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Swan v. O'LEARYWashington Supreme Court · 1950

18 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