Court Opinion

ID: 9847787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:07:25.415167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:33.393005
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.,
with whom Gunderson, J., agrees, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority. The maps and photographs in evidence as well as the testimony of August Kettenberg indicate at least the existence of an “unimproved, unpaved, diagonal path through the sagebrush approximately one car wide” leading from the “Foothill Road” to both parcels of appellant’s property. Kettenberg’s testimony indicates some use of the road by the general public for many *541years. As the Colorado Supreme Court said in Brown v. Jolley, 387 P.2d 278 (Colo. 1963), “A road may be a highway though it reaches but one property owner”. Cf. Anderson v. Richards, 96 Nev. 318, 608 P.2d 1096 (1980).
A slight deviation of the road over the years does not negate the claim that the road had been brought into existence. Central Pacific Railway v. Alameda Co., 284 U.S. 463 (1932).
I agree that appellant is not entitled to enlarge the easement to a width of 50 feet over the property of the Feltens. Keller v. Martini, 86 Nev. 492, 471 P.2d 207 (1970); see Cox v. Glenbrook Co., 78 Nev. 254, 262, 371 P.2d 647 (1962). Nevertheless, he should be entitled to the original trail or a reasonable alternate for ingress to and egress from his land.