Stepp v. Webb

2 Citing cases

  1. Will v. Oakbrooke Properties

    No. 2003-CA-001120-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2004)

    Ky., 309 S.W.2d 750 (1957). Ky., 336 S.W.2d 38 (1960). In Lotze, the developer sought to reserve a six-inch strip of land between its property and the adjacent land The Court declined to enforce the restriction, noting that "dedication to public use by plat is a common method and in its interpretation all doubts as to the intention of the owner are resolved most strongly against him.

  2. De Castillo v. Bargo

    693 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. App. 1985)   Cited 3 times
    In De Castillo, the city of Laredo approved a plat of an industrial park, filed by a partnership, which included "a provision dedicating for public use a sixty-foot-wide right-of-way comprised of 2.40435 acres and indicated therein as Flecha Lane[]" and "contained a reservation... to title in a one-foot strip of land inside and along the entire southern edge of Flecha Lane."

    Further, the policy referred to by the county attorney was not implemented until some four months after the approval of the plat in question. In support of their argument that the reservation of the one foot strip of land was void as against public policy, appellants allege that public interest demands that taxpayers have access to or egress from their properties to streets or alleys that are owned and maintained by a municipality such as Webb County. They further state that public policy requires a presumption that a reservation of strip of land that serves as a barrier between a dedicated road and adjacent property should also be dedicated to the public and refer us to Stepp v. Webb, 336 S.W.2d 38 (Ky.App. 1960) and Lotze v. Garrene Realty Development Co., 309 S.W.2d 750 (Ky.App. 1958). In Lotze, the issue was whether a strip existed or had been reserved by the subdivider.