Anderson v. Richards

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• public road may not be deemed abandoned because of a substantial reduction in the number of people who continue to make use of it
• “An unlawful encroachment placed upon a public roadway will not constitute an abandonment of the public easement and cannot divest the public of its rights to traverse.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Carey Mills v. United States
  Ninth Circuit· 2014-01-29· cited 54×
• Heath v. Parker
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2001-01-04· cited 14×
• Taggart v. Highway Board for the North Latah County Highway District
  Idaho Supreme Court· 1989-03-27· cited 12×
• McNeely v. Jacks
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 1988-06-03· cited 10×
• Anderson v. Felten
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1980-06-04· cited 6×
• In Re Assad
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2008-06-12· cited 3×
• Bergendahl v. Davis
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1986-06-26· cited 3×
• Assad v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
  Nevada Supreme Court· 2008-06-12· cited 2×
• Thomas v. Zachry
  D. Nevada· 2017-06-19
• Thomas v. Zachry
  D. Nevada· 2018-05-03

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Broder v. Water Co.
  Supreme Court· 1879-11-24· cited 109×
• Central Pacific Railway Co. v. Alameda County
  Supreme Court· 1932-02-15· cited 45×
• Connell v. Baker
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1970-09-16· cited 18×
• Brown v. Jolley
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1963-11-26· cited 17×
• Smith v. Bixby
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1976-05-26· cited 11×
• State ex rel. Phillips v. Smith
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 1950-09-27· cited 10×
• King v. Corsini
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1975-09-22· cited 9×