Engquist v. Wirtjes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the required acquiescence is not passive consent to a boundary, but rather conduct or lack thereof from which assent may be reasonably inferred
• noting a finding of acquiescence in a practical location is independent of adverse possession except for the time limitations involved
• affirming no practical location finding absent evidence that disseized or predecessors recognized or treated a fence as a division line, or that disseizor or predecessors used the disputed land
• affirming no-practical-location finding absent evidence that disseized or predecessors recognized or treated a fence as a division line, or that disseizor or predecessors used the disputed land
• requiring more than passive consent to establish a practical-location boundary by acquiescence
• stating practical location is “independent of adverse possession”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).