Reagan v. City of Newport, 43 A.3d 33

Washington Street Extension in Newport disputed by abutting owners.
Extension established by 1915 board of aldermen to lay out a ~50-foot highway across Kendall land.
Kendall conveyed the strip to Newport in 1916 for highway purposes; Newport held the title thereafter.
Extension ceased to function as a public highway after Newport Bridge was built in the late 1960s and fell into disrepair.
Plaintiffs sought to clear title alleging de facto abandonment; Newport argued exclusive abandonment only via the Abandonment Statute after MOU and later actions.
Trial court held abandonment must follow the Abandonment Statute; judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Abandonment by statute the exclusive method to abandon a public highway in Rhode Island?	Abandonment at common law remains viable.	Abandonment requires strict compliance with Abandonment Statute.	Yes, exclusive; statute controls.
Did the city comply with the Abandonment Statute to abandon the Washington Street Extension?	There was de facto abandonment through nonuse and destruction.	Statutory procedures not complied with; no abandonment.	Not abandoned under statute; title not vested in plaintiffs.

Knowles v. Knowles, 25 R.I. 325 (1903) (highways remain public until proper discontinuance)
Wolfe v. City of Providence, 77 R.I. 192 (1950) (abandonment requires formal proceedings under statute)
O'Reilly v. Town of Glocester, 621 A.2d 697 (1993) (compliance with Abandonment Statute exclusive method)
Godena v. Gobeille, 88 R.I. 121 (1958) (statutory procedure governs highway abandonment)
Wall v. Eisenstadt, 51 R.I. 339 (1931) (public highways continue until lawfully abandoned)
Frank W. Coy Real Estate Co. v. Pendleton, 45 R.I. 477 (1924) (abandonment requires formal proceedings; recordation of change)
Ambs v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission, 662 N.W.2d 429 (Mich.App. 2003) (discusses common-law abandonment in other jurisdictions)