The State Department of Roads acquired a 33 foot tract of land by eminent domain for the construction of the interstate. The new owner of the land which originally contained the 33 foot tract erected signed for advertisement along the roadside. The court found the state to be the owner of the strip of land and would not allow plaintiffs to erect signs. However, land which is bounded by a highway and not owned by the state carries the fee to the center of the highway. Carter v. State Dept. of Roads, 198 Neb. 519, 254 N.W.2d 390 (1977).

Fact that basic plats contained usual symbols for unimproved road, i.e., two dotted lines, at position that plaintiff alleged was public road did not show a public road; rather, existence of such notations on publicly circulated material was relevant as tending to show that public at least had notice that “trail road,” unimproved and unmaintained road, existed. Leu v. Littell, 2 Neb. App. 323, 513 N.W.2d 24 (1993).

In the case of public roads the fact that only a few members of the public still use the road does not mean that the road has been abandoned. Breiner v. Holt County, 7 Neb.App. 132, 581 N.W.2d 89 (1998); Sellentin v. Terkildsen, 216 Neb. 284, 343 N.W.2d 895 (1984); Smith v. Bixby, 196 Neb. 235, 242 N.W.2d 115 (1976).

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: