County of Cedar v. Thelen, 305 Neb. 351

Cedar County sued John E. Thelen for a permanent injunction after he repeatedly erected an electric fence in the county road right-of-way (ditch) adjacent to his property.
Criminal misdemeanor charges under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-301 for obstructing a public road were brought simultaneously; Thelen was convicted on three counts and those convictions were affirmed.
County evidence showed the fence was placed multiple times (at least seven occasions), often about 16–17 feet from the road centerline, and county crews repeatedly removed it.
County officials testified the fence created safety hazards, interfered with maintenance, and exposed the county to liability; Thelen ignored notices to remove the fence and indicated fines were merely cheap pasture rent.
The district court entered a permanent injunction barring fences or other obstructions within 33 feet of the road centerline (including ditches); Thelen appealed, arguing (1) the ditch is not part of a "public road" under § 39-301 and (2) criminal prosecution is an adequate remedy, so injunctive relief was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (County)	Defendant's Argument (Thelen)	Held
Whether the ditch/right-of-way is part of the "public road" under § 39-301	The right-of-way (including ditches) is part of the public road and covered by § 39-301	The ditch is not part of the public road and § 39-301 does not apply	Court: Yes; public road includes the county's right-of-way (affirmed)
Whether criminal misdemeanor prosecutions provide an adequate remedy at law that precludes injunctive relief	Repeated, flagrant violations threaten public safety and maintenance; fines have not deterred conduct, so injunction is necessary to prevent future irreparable public harm	Misdemeanor prosecutions and fines are adequate; equity should not be used to enforce criminal law	Court: Exception applies—where repeated violations cause public harm and prosecutions are ineffective, injunction is appropriate (affirmed)
Whether the criminal statute preempts equitable injunctive relief	No; statutes protecting roads do not demonstrate intent to preempt equity	The existence of a penal statute disfavors equitable interference	Court: No preemption; injunction is available when it affords more complete relief to protect public welfare

Denali Real Estate v. Denali Custom Builders, 302 Neb. 984, 926 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 2019) (appellate de novo review of equity cases)
Hogelin v. City of Columbus, 274 Neb. 453, 741 N.W.2d 617 (Neb. 2007) (definition of adequate remedy at law in equity context)
State ex rel. City of Alma v. Furnas Cty. Farms, 266 Neb. 558, 667 N.W.2d 512 (Neb. 2003) (injunction proper to protect public rights despite penal sanction)
City of Lincoln v. ABC Books, Inc., 238 Neb. 378, 470 N.W.2d 760 (Neb. 1991) (injunction upheld after repeated prosecutions failed to remove unlawful booths)
State v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 147 Neb. 970, 25 N.W.2d 824 (Neb. 1947) (injunction to protect traveling public notwithstanding penal statute)
State ex rel. Meyer v. Weiner, 190 Neb. 30, 205 N.W.2d 649 (Neb. 1973) (permanent injunction against continuous unlicensed professional conduct)
State ex rel. Meyer v. Knutson, 178 Neb. 375, 133 N.W.2d 577 (Neb. 1965) (similar support for injunctive relief against repeated statutory violations)
State ex rel. Douglas v. Wiener, 220 Neb. 502, 370 N.W.2d 720 (Neb. 1985) (injunction against continuing violations of statutory education rules)