Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kral v. Boesch

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 24, 1996No. C9-96-1226Published

1ConcurrenceCrippen, Judge

I concur in the result. But the importance of this case may lie more in what it does not decide than in the decision itself.

Subject to often-stated limits, a landowner may cast surface water onto the property of a neighbor. Although the reasonable use doctrine is clear in most of its parts, there is remarkably little authority to guide us on the question of draining surface water by directly connecting a tile line into an existing line of a neighbor.

The controversy here involves a tile line, running on respondent Kral’s property and crossing onto appellant Boesch’s land, that has been in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Duenow v. LindemanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  2. Hagerty v. RadleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  3. Evers v. WillabyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API