Dykes v. Friends of the C.C.C. Road, 720 S.E.2d 537

Friends of the C.C.C. Road filed for injunctive relief to prevent gates restricting public access to a private rural road crossing private land in Highland County.
Defendants (Dykes, Burches) owned tracts along the C.C.C. Road and disputed that the road is a public road.
The circuit court relied on stipulated facts, concluding there was no formal dedication but that long use and government recognition could render the road public.
County and state officials had treated the road as public in practice, but the county had never formally adopted it into its road system and it is not on the official VDOT map.
The court held the road could be public by long, continuous use with government recognition, despite no formal acceptance or dedication.
The circuit court granted injunctive relief ordering removal of gates; on appeal, the issue was whether the road is public by dedication/acceptance, prescription, or long use recognized by government.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the C.C.C. Road is public by dedication and acceptance	Friends argues there was no formal or implied dedication and no government acceptance.	Dykes asserts no dedication/acceptance; rural roads require formal acceptance to become public.	No dedication and no acceptance; road not public by dedication.
Whether long, continuous use plus government recognition creates a public right-of-way	Friends contends long use and government recognition can convert private road to public.	Dykes contends recognition cannot substitute for formal acceptance; no public road by long use alone.	Long use with recognition cannot create a public road without formal acceptance.
Whether a prescriptive easement in favor of the public can arise from long use	Friends relies on long, continuous use and government recognition to establish a prescriptive right.	Dykes asserts no exclusive use by the public and prescription cannot run to create a public road.	Public prescriptive easement cannot be created; Burks Brothers interpretation is constrained; no exclusive public use established.

Bradford v. Nature Conservancy, 224 Va. 181 (1982) (implied dedication requires unmistakable intent and acceptance may be required for rural roads)
Mulford v. Walnut Hill Farm Group, LLC, 282 Va. 98 (2011) (rural dedication requires formal acceptance; lack of acceptance prevents public road status)
Virginia Hot Springs Co. v. Lowman, 126 Va. 424 (1919) (long public use evidences dedication but requires government acceptance; not alone enough)
Commonwealth v. Kelly, 49 Va. (8 Gratt.) 632 (1851) (mere use over long period does not convert private roads to public by prescription)
Ward v. Harper, 234 Va. 68 (1987) (exclusiveness is essential for prescriptive rights; general public use defeats prescription)
Board of Supervisors of Tazewell County v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 119 Va. 763 (1916) (concept of implied dedication and acceptance via prescription requires acceptance by authority)
Burks Brothers of Virginia, Inc. v. Jones, 232 Va. 238 (1986) (long-continued use evidence; not determinative of public right without acceptance)