Legal Opinion
Township of Villard v. Hoting
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 11, 1989No. C5-89-85PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PARKER, Judge.
Appellants challenge the trial court’s declaratory judgment that the road which passes through their Villard Township properties had been established at four rods in width by common law dedication and thereafter was sufficiently used as a public road. We affirm.
FACTS
In early 1918, seven persons petitioned Villard Township to lay out a new road, four rods in width, across the lands owned by three of the petitioners. The petitioners produced affidavits showing they had caused notice to be given to all occupants of the land through which the road might pass. The township’s…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Doe v. Minnesota State Board of Medical ExaminersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Ingelson v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
- Anderson v. BirkelandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- B. W. & Leo Harris Co. v. City of HastingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Barfnecht v. Town Board of Hollywood TownshipSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Foster v. BergstromCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Sackett v. StormCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Henricksen v. Town Board of KerrickCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- Sackett v. StormCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992