LeeJoice v. Harris
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from a trial court judgment determining the boundary line between the parties’ property. Appellants claim the trial court erred because they own certain land by either (1) adverse possession or (2) practical location of the boundary. We affirm.
FACTS
This action to establish the boundary between the parties’ property concerns land off the shore of Lake Mille Lacs in northern Minnesota. An east-west line divides the northern property possessed by respondents, who own the Mille Lacs Motel, from the southern property possessed by appellants, who own the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Village of Newport v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Wojahn v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Theros v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Dean v. GoddardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Engquist v. WirtjesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pratt Investment Co. v. KennedyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Gabler v. FedorukCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- Britney v. Swan Lake Cabin Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- Gabler v. FedorukCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008