Legal Opinion

Duevel v. Jennissen

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 31, 1984No. C6-84-271PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

Duevel and Jennissens are adjoining landowners. Duevel brought an action to recover damages and to enjoin Jennissens from pumping water onto his land. Jennis-sens counterclaimed for damages caused by Duevel’s obstructing a drainage ditch connecting the parties’ lands. The trial court dismissed Duevel’s suit, ordered him to reopen and keep open the ditch, and awarded Jennissens damages for flooding caused by Duevel’s obstruction of the ditch. On appeal Duevel contends that the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Edmund Duevel owns…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Enderson v. KelehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  2. Pell v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  3. Miles v. City of OakdaleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Evers v. WillabyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  2. Kral v. BoeschCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
  3. Quist v. KroeningCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  4. Kral v. BoeschCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
  5. Victor Legatt v. Dennis LegattCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API