United States Ex Rel. Zuni Tribe of New Mexico v. Platt
1990 WL 10124, 730 F.Supp. 318, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15524 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prescriptive easement can be established through periodic use that is not literally continuous, provided the use is consistent with the nature of the easement claimed and occurs openly, hostilely, and under a claim of right for the statutory period.
Facts:
- The Zuni Indians have conducted a periodic religious pilgrimage at the summer solstice from their reservation in New Mexico to a sacred site in Arizona, known as Kohlu/wala:wa.
- Historical evidence shows this pilgrimage has occurred since at least 1540 A.D., with photographic evidence from 1924.
- The pilgrimage party, consisting of 40-60 people on foot or horseback, follows a consistent and relatively unchanged path approximately 50 feet wide.
- A portion of this pilgrimage route crosses land owned or leased by Earl Platt.
- The Zuni believed they had a right to cross the lands and did not seek permission; when encountering man-made obstacles like fences, they would cut or take them down.
- The pilgrimage was an open and visible event, and its existence and general route were well-known in the local community.
- In 1985, Earl Platt declared his intention to prevent the Zuni from crossing his land during their pilgrimage.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States, on behalf of the Zuni Tribe, filed suit against Earl Platt and the estate of Buena Platt in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking to establish a prescriptive easement.
- The court granted a temporary restraining order in 1985 to prevent Platt from interfering with that year's pilgrimage.
- The Zuni Tribe was permitted to intervene as a plaintiff, adding claims based on treaty rights and federal law.
- The district court severed the Zuni Tribe's constitutional and treaty-based claims from the prescriptive easement claim.
- A bench trial was held in the district court solely on the issue of whether the Zuni Tribe had established a prescriptive easement.
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 a Native American tribe's quadrennial religious pilgrimage across private land, conducted openly and under a claim of right for over the statutory ten-year period, satisfy the elements of adverse possession required to establish a prescriptive easement under Arizona law?
Opinions:
Majority - Carroll, District Judge
Yes, the Zuni Tribe's quadrennial pilgrimage establishes a prescriptive easement. To acquire a prescriptive easement under Arizona law, a claimant's use must be actual, open and notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, and continuous for a ten-year period. The court found the Zuni's use met these elements. The 'continuous' element does not require constant physical presence; for a periodic use like a quadrennial pilgrimage, consistent use every four years is sufficient because it aligns with the nature of the right being claimed. The use was 'actual' because the Zuni occupied the path during the pilgrimage, 'open and notorious' because it was widely known in the community, and 'hostile' and 'under a claim of right' because the Zuni believed they had the right to cross, never sought permission, and cut fences that obstructed their path. Once these elements were established, the burden shifted to the landowner, Platt, to prove the use was permissive, which he failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying that the 'continuous' use requirement for a prescriptive easement is flexible and depends on the nature of the use asserted. The court affirmed that a highly intermittent but regular use, such as a religious ceremony occurring every four years, can satisfy the continuity element. This precedent provides a legal framework for protecting long-standing traditional, cultural, or religious land uses that are periodic in nature. It distinguishes the requirements for a limited-use easement from those needed to acquire full title by adverse possession, lowering the bar for claimants seeking only a right of way.
