Opinion ID: 2549273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 3] The Defendants set forth three issues for review: 1. Is the Soldier Creek Toll Road or Soldier Creek Trail a public road or trail pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 932? 2. Do the [Defendants] and the general public enjoy a prescriptive easement right in the use of the Soldier Creek Toll Road or Trail? 3. Should the proposed interveners have been allowed to intervene in the case? The Forbeses respond with a list of seven issues: 1. Where the Board of County Commissioners never determined that the Soldier Creek Trail was necessary or important for public use and did not officially record the Soldier Creek Trail as a public road by January 1, 1924, as required by 1919 Session Laws, ch. 112 and 1921 Session Laws, ch. 100, did the District Court correctly determine that the Soldier Creek Trail is not a public road? 2. Did the District Court correctly determine that there was no public prescriptive easement over the Soldier Creek Trail? 3. Did the District Court correctly determine that the Defendants had no private prescriptive easement over the Soldier Creek Trail? 4. Did the District Court correctly refuse to grant Defendants' motion to determine that the Soldier Creek Trail was a public road as a matter of law? 5. Was the notice of appeal of the order denying intervention timely filed? 6. Do the Defendants have standing to appeal from an order denying a motion to intervene filed by a third party? 7. Did the District Court properly deny the Intervenor's [sic] motion to intervene as of right under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)?