“Property owners brought action against city and adjoining property owners, seeking to quiet title and to establish easement by prescription, and alleging claims for trespass, reverse condemnation, § 1983 violation, and damages. The Superior Court, York County, Fritzsche, J., declared that lane bordering properties was a public way, granted city a prescriptive easement in land beyond
paved area of lane, dismissed § 1983 claim, and held that plaintiff had easement on portion of adjoining property. Appeals were taken. The Supreme Judicial Court,
Rudman, J., held that:

(1) evidence supported city’s right to public way by prescriptive use;

(2) boundary surveyor’s uncontroverted testimony supported finding
that width of lane extended beyond its paved portions;

(3) property owners’ § 1983 claim was timebarred;

(4) evidence supported finding that grantor intended
easement over adjoining property to be perpetual in
nature;

(5) adjoining property owners were not innocent purchasers entitled to invoke doctrine of equitable
estoppel to extinguish easement;

(6) as a matter of first impression, tax sale did not extinguish easement
appurtenant;

and (7) evidence of prior use supported
permitting use of vehicles on right-of-way.
Affirmed.”

Stickney v. City of Saco 770_A_2d_592