added). 14 Id. at 1208, 866 P.2d at 267. 15 NRS 408.523(3) provides that: When a highway for which the State holds only an easement is abandoned, or when any other easement is abandoned, the property previously subject thereto is free from the public easement for highway purposes. 16 86 Nev. 257, 468 P.2d 8 (1970). 17 Id. at 260, 468 P.2d at 9-10 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 18 Even in states that have recognized abutter’s rights, the abutting landowner must often show necessity and the prior existence of a public road or, in cases of abandonment, that the abutting landowner had a preexisting right in the easement. See Greenberg v. L.I. Snodgrass Co., 119 N.E.2d 292 (Ohio 1954); Mason v. State, 656 P.2d 465 (Utah 1982); Gilmor v. Wright, 850 P.2d 431, 437-38 (Utah 1993) (<HOLDING>). 19 We conclude that, based on the facts here,
holding in case where railroad grant was an easement and not a right of way that title vested in abutting landowner once railroad abandoned land holding that a subsequent abandonment of a public rightofway over such a road has no effect on a private easement owned by an abutting landowner holding that mere use of a road will not make a road a public road even though such use is with the knowledge and consent of the landowner unless the use is accompanied by  recognition by public authority or by its maintainance sic holding that a bia road was a tribal road by considering the nature of the rightofway at issue and finding that although the tribe had relinquished certain gatekeeping rights by allowing public use of the road and collaborating with the bia in maintaining it the tribe had maintained other significant gatekeeping rights because the rightofway was not granted to the state and the road did not form any part of the states highway system holding that city may by ordinance require abutting landowner to repair sidewalk but that the abutting landowner is not liable in an action in tort for injuries