In State v. NICO-WF1, L.L.C., 384 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. 2012), Arroyo Boulevard was dedicated for public use in 1928. Id. at 820. The dedication "provided that its boundary lines were to be 100 feet apart with curb lines fifteen feet inside the outer boundaries, leaving seventy feet between the curb lines." Id. TxDOT later discovered that part of a building owned by NICO encroached about ten feet onto Arroyo Boulevard's 100-foot public right of way. Id. The State sued NICO, and NICO sought a declaration that its building did not encroach on Arroyo Boulevard because the public dedication limited the road's width to the existing curb line. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment for NICO, concluding that Arroyo Boulevard was subject to a curb-line condition that limited the roadway to a maximum of seventy feet. Id. at 820--21. The court of appeals affirmed but also held that NICO's building did not encroach on the public right of way because the fifteen feet between the curbs and outer street lines "were not dedicated for any public use whatsoever." Id. It was in the context of addressing this additional holding by the court of appeals--that the public-street easement was defined by a curb-line condition rather than the street's boundary line as dedicated--that the supreme court made the following observations: When a street is dedicated to the public, the governmental entity taking control of the street ordinarily acquires only an easement that it holds in trust for the public benefit. The easement, however, carries with it the right to use and control as much of the surface and subsurface of the street as may be reasonably needed for street purposes. These purposes, of course, include transporting people and property, but a public street may also be used as a passageway for utilities and other public purposes. In short, a street includes the whole width of the public right of way. It includes sidewalks and parkways, which "are a part of the street itself." And it includes "the pavement, shoulders, gutters, curbs, and other areas within the street lines." Id. at 821. The supreme court held that the court of appeals had erred by concluding that the dedication was defined by the curb-line condition. Id.