Purported dominant estate owner brought action against city, alleging existence of prescriptive easement over city-owned property. Following a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment in favor of city. Purported dominant estate owner appealed.
The Supreme Court of Idaho held that:
- Federal district court did not have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over dispute;
- Use of road was not continuous and uninterrupted;
- Use of road was permissive, rather than adverse;
- Easement by necessity claim was tried by implied consent; and
- Purported dominant estate owner did not establish unity of title to support easement by necessity claim.