Abstract
Utah's dedication doctrine has existed since before statehood. Over more than a century of interpretation, it has evolved from a doctrine based on the dedication principals of intent and acceptance, to a doctrine based on the prescription principals of adverse use. This seems to be the proper evolution, since the Dedication Statute's three recognizable eiements all point towards prescription doctrine (despite the statute's superficial "dedication" title). Yet, the Utah Supreme Court has recently interpreted the statute in a way that confuses the doctrines of implied dedication and prescription. In so doing, it has created a rule for interpreting "continuous use" that is inconsistent with both the statute~s history and long-established doctrines. Since the statute has long been difficult to define, the doctrine was surely in need of clarificatioh. However, despite the court's good intentions, the court's new bright-line test both eviscerates the statute and "further complicates the doctrine. To avoid these problems, Utah courts and lawmakers should" focus more heavily on the doctrine's "permissive use" element instead of altering the definition of "continuous use," long established under prescription theory. By so doing, the interests of the general public will be more fairly balanced with private landowner interests and the Dedication Statute will continue to serve a meaningful purpose.
Recommended Citation
Alger, Clay
(2008)
"Use Interrupted: The Complicated Evolution ofUtah's Highway Dedication Doctrine,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2008:
No.
4, Article 8.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2008/iss4/8