general public claim in Nebraska

1959Kendall-Smith Co. v. Lancaster County, 84 Neb. 654 , 121 N. W. 960 , contains the following: “In this connection plaintiff invokes the following rule announced in Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 , and followed in other cases: ‘To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined-way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to-recover the land.’ * * * slight variances to avoid mud, pools, encro

1947In Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 , 69 N. W. 970 , we held: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.” In Smith v. Nofsinger, 86 Neb. 834 , 126 N. W. 659 , we said: “Mere willingness to accommodate school children, a neighbor, or the public ought not to be made the basis for a decree wresting from the individual his

1993Furthermore, “there must be a use by the general public under a claim of right adverse to the owner of the land of some particular defined line of travel, and the use must be uninterrupted and without substantial change for 10 years or more.” Id. at 287 , 343 N. W.2d at 897 . “ ‘To prove a prescriptive right to an easement, all the elements of prescriptive use must be generally established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence....’ ” Svoboda v. Johnson, 204 Neb. 57, 62 , 281 N.W.2d 892, 897 (1979).

1993Furthermore, “there must be a use by the general public under a claim of right adverse to the owner of the land of some particular defined line of travel, and the use must be uninterrupted and without substantial change for 10 years or more.” Id. at 287 , 343 N. W.2d at 897 . “ ‘To prove a prescriptive right to an easement, all the elements of prescriptive use must be generally established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence....’ ” Svoboda v. Johnson, 204 Neb. 57, 62 , 281 N.W.2d 892, 897 (1979).

1912Plaintiff argues that a public highway for the entire three-fourths of a mile in controversy was clearly shown by the evidence, within the meaning of the following rule: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right! and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.” Bleck v. Keller, 73 Neb. 826 ; Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 .

1910The rule was applied to defeat an asserted highway in Bleck v. Keller, 73 Neb. 826, and in Nelson v. Sneed, 76 Neb. 201 .

1984Masid v. First State Bank, 213 Neb. 431 , 329 N.W.2d 560 (1983). *287 Furthermore, we have held that in order to establish a roadway in favor of the public by prescriptive easement, there must be a use by the general public under a claim of right adverse to the owner of the land of some particular defined line of travel, and the use must be uninterrupted and without substantial change for 10 years or more, the period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.

1984Masid v. First State Bank, 213 Neb. 431 , 329 N.W.2d 560 (1983). *287 Furthermore, we have held that in order to establish a roadway in favor of the public by prescriptive easement, there must be a use by the general public under a claim of right adverse to the owner of the land of some particular defined line of travel, and the use must be uninterrupted and without substantial change for 10 years or more, the period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.

1984Sturm v. Mau, 209 Neb. 865 , 312 N.W.2d 272 (1981).

1984Sturm v. Mau, 209 Neb. 865 , 312 N.W.2d 272 (1981).

1972The language used in Gilliland v. County of Frontier, 148 Neb. 636 , 28 N. W. 2d 448 , is appropriate: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.” That case further stated: “The plaintiff owner acquired the land in 1916 and 1917.

1972The language used in Gilliland v. County of Frontier, 148 Neb. 636 , 28 N. W. 2d 448 , is appropriate: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.” That case further stated: “The plaintiff owner acquired the land in 1916 and 1917.

1959The deviations relied upon by plaintiff fall clearly within the following doctrine announced by this court in Nelson v. Jenkins, 42 Neb. 133 : Tt is not indispensable to the establishment of a highway over lands by prescription, or adverse user, that there be no deviation, in the line of travel.

1959Kendall-Smith Co. v. Lancaster County, 84 Neb. 654 , 121 N. W. 960 , contains the following: “In this connection plaintiff invokes the following rule announced in Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 , and followed in other cases: ‘To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined-way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to-recover the land.’ * * * slight variances to avoid mud, pools, encro

1959Kendall-Smith Co. v. Lancaster County, 84 Neb. 654 , 121 N. W. 960 , contains the following: “In this connection plaintiff invokes the following rule announced in Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 , and followed in other cases: ‘To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined-way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to-recover the land.’ * * * slight variances to avoid mud, pools, encro

1952Draper v. Freese, 147 Neb. 147 , 22 N. W. 2d 556 .

1952Draper v. Freese, 147 Neb. 147 , 22 N. W. 2d 556 .

1952In Gehris v. Fuhrman, 68 Neb. 325 , 94 N. W. 133 , it is said:- “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action for- the recovery of the land.” See, also, Hill v. McGinnis, 64 Neb. 187 , 89 N. W. 783 ; State ex rel.

1952In Gehris v. Fuhrman, 68 Neb. 325 , 94 N. W. 133 , it is said:- “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action for- the recovery of the land.” See, also, Hill v. McGinnis, 64 Neb. 187 , 89 N. W. 783 ; State ex rel.

1952In Gehris v. Fuhrman, 68 Neb. 325 , 94 N. W. 133 , it is said:- “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action for- the recovery of the land.” See, also, Hill v. McGinnis, 64 Neb. 187 , 89 N. W. 783 ; State ex rel.

1952In Gehris v. Fuhrman, 68 Neb. 325 , 94 N. W. 133 , it is said:- “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action for- the recovery of the land.” See, also, Hill v. McGinnis, 64 Neb. 187 , 89 N. W. 783 ; State ex rel.

1947In Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 , 69 N. W. 970 , we held: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.” In Smith v. Nofsinger, 86 Neb. 834 , 126 N. W. 659 , we said: “Mere willingness to accommodate school children, a neighbor, or the public ought not to be made the basis for a decree wresting from the individual his

1947In Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 , 69 N. W. 970 , we held: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.” In Smith v. Nofsinger, 86 Neb. 834 , 126 N. W. 659 , we said: “Mere willingness to accommodate school children, a neighbor, or the public ought not to be made the basis for a decree wresting from the individual his

1947In Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 , 69 N. W. 970 , we held: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.” In Smith v. Nofsinger, 86 Neb. 834 , 126 N. W. 659 , we said: “Mere willingness to accommodate school children, a neighbor, or the public ought not to be made the basis for a decree wresting from the individual his

1947In Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 , 69 N. W. 970 , we held: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial change, for a period of time necessary to bar an action to recover the land.” In Smith v. Nofsinger, 86 Neb. 834 , 126 N. W. 659 , we said: “Mere willingness to accommodate school children, a neighbor, or the public ought not to be made the basis for a decree wresting from the individual his

1910The rule was applied to defeat an asserted highway in Bleck v. Keller, 73 Neb. 826, and in Nelson v. Sneed, 76 Neb. 201 .

1898(Lanier v. Booth, 50 Miss. 410 ; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. [U. S.] 10; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. Car. 487; Blanchard v. Moulton, 63 Me. 437 ; Cyr v. Madore, 73 Me. 53 ; Pentland v. Keep, 41 Wis. 490 ; State v. Green, 41 Ia. 693 ; Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 .) The second point in the syllabus of the last mentioned case states the rule as follows: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial chan

1898(Lanier v. Booth, 50 Miss. 410 ; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. [U. S.] 10; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. Car. 487; Blanchard v. Moulton, 63 Me. 437 ; Cyr v. Madore, 73 Me. 53 ; Pentland v. Keep, 41 Wis. 490 ; State v. Green, 41 Ia. 693 ; Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 .) The second point in the syllabus of the last mentioned case states the rule as follows: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial chan

1898(Lanier v. Booth, 50 Miss. 410 ; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. [U. S.] 10; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. Car. 487; Blanchard v. Moulton, 63 Me. 437 ; Cyr v. Madore, 73 Me. 53 ; Pentland v. Keep, 41 Wis. 490 ; State v. Green, 41 Ia. 693 ; Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 .) The second point in the syllabus of the last mentioned case states the rule as follows: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial chan

1898(Lanier v. Booth, 50 Miss. 410 ; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. [U. S.] 10; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. Car. 487; Blanchard v. Moulton, 63 Me. 437 ; Cyr v. Madore, 73 Me. 53 ; Pentland v. Keep, 41 Wis. 490 ; State v. Green, 41 Ia. 693 ; Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 .) The second point in the syllabus of the last mentioned case states the rule as follows: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial chan

1898(Lanier v. Booth, 50 Miss. 410 ; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. [U. S.] 10; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N. Car. 487; Blanchard v. Moulton, 63 Me. 437 ; Cyr v. Madore, 73 Me. 53 ; Pentland v. Keep, 41 Wis. 490 ; State v. Green, 41 Ia. 693 ; Engle v. Hunt, 50 Neb. 358 .) The second point in the syllabus of the last mentioned case states the rule as follows: “To establish a highway by prescription there must be a user by the general public under a claim of right, and which is adverse to the occupancy of the owner of the land, of some particular or defined way or track, uninterruptedly, without substantial chan