therefore directly contest the district court’s finding of public use. The district court found that the road had been used by the public “through regular use by J.P. Delgado [the owner of the land just north of the parcel in question] and his family, friends and associates beginning in 1913, and by use by other landowners and members of the public well prior to 1931.” Defendants argue that all the testimony regarding use of the road before 1931 indicates private rather than public use of the road. Although use that is “merely occasional” or otherwise insubstantial is not sufficient to accept the dedication of a road under 43 U.S.C. Section 932, “the concept of acceptance by public usage is to be applied liberally.” Luchetti v. Bandler, 108 N.M. 682, 684, 777 P.2d 1326, 1328 (Ct.App.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 108 N.M. 681, 777 P.2d 1325
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that substantial evidence supported district courts finding of insufficient public use of a road for purposes of 43 usc section 932