Leo Sheep Co. v. United States
440 U.S. 668 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the United States grants public lands to a private party via a statute that includes specific, express reservations, the government does not retain an implied easement by necessity to access its retained lands, especially since it possesses the power of eminent domain to acquire such access.
Facts:
- In 1862, Congress passed the Union Pacific Act, which granted odd-numbered sections of public land to the Union Pacific Railroad to subsidize the construction of the transcontinental railroad.
- The federal government retained the even-numbered sections of land, creating a 'checkerboard' pattern of alternating private and public parcels.
- The 1862 Act included several express reservations to the grant, but it did not explicitly reserve an easement for the government to access its retained lands.
- Leo Sheep Co. and Palm Livestock Co. are the successors in title to odd-numbered sections of this land located in Carbon County, Wyoming.
- The government's retained parcels adjacent to Leo Sheep Co.'s land border the Seminoe Reservoir, an area used by the public for recreation.
- Public access to the Seminoe Reservoir from a nearby county road is physically impossible without crossing Leo Sheep Co.'s private property.
- After negotiations with the landowners failed, the government cleared a dirt road across Leo Sheep Co.'s land to provide public access to the reservoir.
Procedural Posture:
- Leo Sheep Co. filed an action in the U.S. District Court to quiet title against the United States.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Leo Sheep Co.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that the government had an implicitly reserved easement.
- Leo Sheep Co., as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the United States government have an implied easement to build a public road across private land that was originally granted to a railroad under the Union Pacific Act of 1862, where the statute did not expressly reserve such a right-of-way?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The government does not have an implied easement to build a road across the private lands granted under the Union Pacific Act of 1862. The Court reasoned that the Act itself contained specific, express reservations, and the omission of an access easement implies that Congress did not intend to reserve one. The common-law doctrine of an easement by necessity is inapplicable because the government is not truly landlocked; it has the power of eminent domain to condemn and pay for any access it requires. The Court emphasized the need for certainty in land titles and was unwilling to upset settled property rights granted over a century ago by implying a right that Congress failed to reserve expressly.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the property rights of private landowners in the western United States whose titles derive from 19th-century 'checkerboard' land grants. It establishes the precedent that the government cannot later claim an implied right of access across these private lands for free. By rejecting the implied easement theory and pointing to eminent domain as the proper remedy, the Court forces the government to provide just compensation if it wishes to create public access routes, thereby protecting landowners from uncompensated takings and reinforcing the importance of stability in property law.
