My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LOCATION OF MAILBOXES
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
Legal Opinions
>
1972-2010 Opinions
>
LOCATION OF MAILBOXES
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:31:30 PM
Creation date
7/20/2010 10:20:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legal Opinions
Description
LOCATION OF MAILBOXES
Date
9/2/1974
Agency
City Council
Notes
OPINION 74-31
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
OFFICE OF TIIE CITY ATTORNEY <br />OPINION N0. 74-31 <br />SUBJECT: Location of Diail Boxes <br />REQUESTED BY: City Council <br />OPINION BY: James A. Withers, City Attorney <br />BY: Richard E. Lay, Deputy <br />QUESTION: May City residents legally place their <br />mail bOXP_S within the public right-of-way <br />area without the City's consent in res- <br />ponse to a request or directive from <br />postal authorities? <br />ANSWER: The only existing case law is to the effect <br />that the U.S. Postal Service has exclusive <br />control over the regulation of mail box <br />location on streets used for the delivery <br />of mail. Possible arguments could be deve- <br />loped to challenge this authority but the <br />likelihood of success is not high. <br />A. The Public' Right-of-Way <br />The acquisition by a city of land for street purposes, <br />whether by dedication, condemnation, or grant, creates in the <br />city a right in the nature of an easement over the land acquired <br />which is held in trust for the public and which is generally <br />referred to as the public right-of-way. The City may or may not <br />also acquire the fee interest in such land, but, even if the <br />City owns the fee, the public easement in the. use of the land <br />for street purposes remains a separate and distinct interest. <br />The public easement is not limited to that portion of <br />the land actually paved or improved for use by vehicular traffic. <br />It extends to the full width of the land acquired for street <br />purposes, including unimproved portions. People v. Henderson, <br />194 P2d 91 (Ct. of App., 1948), Carlton v. Pacific Coast Gasoline <br />Co. 242 P. 2d 391 (Ct. of App., 1952 It includes sidewalks <br />and the plots (parkways) between the sidewalk and the curb. <br />10 McQuillan, Munici al Cor orations, sections 30.03, 30.05. <br />B. Encroachments <br />In discussing public and private uses of the public <br />right-of-way, a distinction should be made between the terms <br />"encroachment" and "obstruction." Courts may tend to confuse <br />-89- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.