Court Opinion

ID: 9935335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:55:46.3014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:19.408742
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result reached by the main opinion. However, I wish to emphasize that my concurrence is based on the specific facts presented by this case. I see three critical elements in this case. First, there is substantial evidence before the trial court that the appropriate governmental entity is in fact exercising authority over the roadway in question. Second, there is substantial evidence that the public is regularly using the roadway. Third, the case presents a substantial likelihood that its judicial determination will result in the roadway's no longer being used by the public.
Given these factors, I agree that the rationale of the main opinion requires that the governmental entity involved be joined as an indispensable party. I do not view the Court's holding to be applicable to different fact scenarios wherein landowners are litigating whether a roadway is public or private.