Legal Opinion

Magnuson v. Cossette

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 17, 2006No. A05-377PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DIETZEN, Judge.

Appellant challenges the district court order and judgment denying his claim for riparian rights to the Warroad Marina Bay, and concluding that appellant’s property is burdened by a prescriptive easement and an easement by implication of necessity for use of a road across his property. Because we find that appellant’s property does not have riparian rights, and appellant’s property is burdened by an easement by implication of necessity but not a prescriptive easement, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS

Respondents Terrance, Margaret, and Kevin Magnuson own and…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Rogers v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  2. Romans v. NadlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  3. Johnson v. SeifertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  4. Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  5. Olson v. MullenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bolinger v. NealColorado Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Bolen v. GlassCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  3. Springer v. CahoySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API