Fries v. Martin

3 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Higley v. State

    2010 UT App. 227 (Utah Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    ¶ 15 But even assuming that the Estate is correct that the general rule applies only to certain state lands, there is simply no support for the Estate's contention that the general rule should apply only to state land that is actually available for the public to use as opposed to land simply designated, for public use. Indeed, we have previously stated the opposite: "[R]eal property designated as public use can only cease to be such by formal vacation. . . . The formal vacation rule applies regardless of whether property was actually used by the public or simply designated for public use in a particular dedication." Fries v. Martin, 2006 UT App 514, ¶¶ 8-9, 154 P.3d 184. Thus, where the original condemnation order decreed that the use of the property was a public use, and where it is apparently undisputed that no formal vacation has since taken place, the subject property is still held for the public use. Therefore, even assuming a public use limitation on the general rule, the property here remains subject to the general rule and rights to the subject property cannot be obtained through adverse possession.

  2. Estate of Higley v. Department of Trans

    2010 UT App. 143 (Utah Ct. App. 2010)

    ¶ 15 But even assuming that the Estate is correct that the general rule applies only to certain state lands, there is simply no support for the Estate's contention that the general rule should apply only to state land that is actually available for the public to use as opposed to land simplydesignated for public use. Indeed, we have previously stated the opposite: "[R]eal property designated as public use can only cease to be such by formal vacation. . . . The formal vacation rule applies regardless of whether property was actually used by the public or simply designated for public use in a particular dedication." Fries v. Martin, 2006 UT App 514, ¶¶ 8-9, 154 P.3d 184. Thus, where the original condemnation order decreed that the use of the property was a public use, and where it is apparently undisputed that no formal vacation has since taken place, the subject property is still held for the public use. Therefore, even assuming a public use limitation on the general rule, the property here remains subject to the general rule and rights to the subject property cannot be obtained through adverse possession.

  3. Fries v. Martin

    168 P.3d 339 (Utah 2007)

    April 20, 2007. Appeal from the 154 P.3d 184. Petitions For Certiorari Denied.