Judge Rules in Favor of Corner Crossing Hunters

[Bob-WY]

Here area couple of snippets from other threads that formed my frame of thought

All credit for this to "vikingsguy"

"that Mackay & Buford apply and that where there is no other reasonable manner to access federal lands, that the allowance of non-destructive passing over of a private owner's portion air space of a corner is not trespass as a matter of law - a baked-in limitation on the property right to begin with.

So, subject to appeal, this is good law in WY federal courts.

But the court was careful and purposeful in the ruling - this is not a free pass through all corners for any reason and any manner. If there was another less convenient route it is unlikely this court would have allowed it. If the hunters had done damage to the private land this court would have found the other way. Under this ruling, folks need to be careful in finding the actual corners and step over with some care. I don't think just blundering through "close enough" gets it done as this is a judge-made exception to private property rights and I imagine they will keep the exception slim.

The court also said that violation of UIA excused any incidental trespass necessary to get around violations of the UIA. Since merely touching the posts was minor this was an easy call, but if they had cut the chains or pulled out the posts, etc it might have not been as simple. Again here, the defendants' cautious behavior went a long way in setting up a favorable outcome."

 

[VikingsGuy]

That the 4 were successful in a summary judgment of not guilty of civil trespass.

That doesn’t mean there is arbitrary rules of how or what is / isn’t allowed.

Making up and posting statements on what is, while it’s still in limbo is dangerous and bad practice. Each individual decision has consequences that the individual has to make on their own based on their level of risk.

@Bob-WY is on the right track. This ruling creates (or re-finds depending on the two old cases the court cited) a federal limitation on longstanding private property rights and the court went only as far as it had to on these facts.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Incorrect, it's a federal court, not state (district) court.

The federal district court is precedent in Wyoming federal district court for federal matters only. To the extent a federal district court touches on state laws such federal determinations are only precedential when coming from SCOTUS. The other 49 states are on their own at this point.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Crossing from public to public at a corner is not trespassing is what was said. Doesn't make any difference if there's another way to access that particular section.

That is not a great reading of the court. Now in the future, other courts may be bolder, but for now, the court seems to make an exception to long standing private property rights out of a “necessity”, not hunter convenience.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I invite readers of this thread to post future remarks on the longer prior thread linked on page one.

 

[WyoDoug]

The federal district court is precedent in Wyoming federal district court for federal matters only. To the extent a federal district court touches on state laws such federal determinations are only precedential when coming from SCOTUS. The other 49 states are on their own at this point.

Not really. Federal district courts that are published in the federal reporter are considered persuastive and might be cited in other cases. It is binding when it reaches the circuit court of appeals and is backed by that circuit court. It then becomes binding on all courts in that federal court district. When multiple circuit appeals courts back a federal court decision then it has federal jurisdiction and is binding until otherwise determined by SCOTUS. Usually, though, SCOTUS does not review cases unless the various circuit courts issue conflicting decisions.

 

[Straight Arrow]

In the current climate of this politically wacko Congress, all it would take is a Congressional lock on all "private" corners and this seemingly hopeful legal precedent is null and void.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not really. Federal district courts that are published in the federal reporter are considered persuastive and might be cited in other cases. It is binding when it reaches the circuit court of appeals and is backed by that circuit court. It then becomes binding on all courts in that federal court district. When multiple circuit appeals courts back a federal court decision then it has federal jurisdiction and is binding until otherwise determined by SCOTUS. Usually, though, SCOTUS does not review cases unless the various circuit courts issue conflicting decisions.

We may actually agree but be miscommunicating over the internet - but fed circuit court opinions using state law (see, Erie and its many progeny) are not binding on the state courts - only SCOTUS can bind state courts on state laws. This matter is a mix of state and federal laws, so this distinction could end up meaningful.

 

[WyoDoug]

My hope is there is an appeal by the Edlemans and the circuit court of appels reviews it favorably and it generates other similar court cases across the country then it will have stronger precedent than just being considered presuasive and cited in federal court cases.

 

[WyoDoug]

We may actually agree but be miscommunicating over the internet - but fed circuit court opinions using state law (see, Erie and its many progeny) are not binding on the state courts - only SCOTUS can bind state courts on state laws. This matter is a mix of state and federal laws, so this distinction could end up meaningful.

Yup. That's why I think it needs to reach SCOTUS level eventually. Right now it is just in the persuasive category where it may be cited in later cases but not in true binding form.

 

[WyoDoug]

Looks like for now, the hunters have won their case. Eshelman can however, appeal to the 10th Circuit which seems to be expected.

Ranch owner in corner-crossing case drops Waypoint 6 trespass claim - WyoFile

Hunters also agree not to seek attorneys’ fees after judge rules they did not trespass when corner crossing.

wyofile.com

 

[MTGunner]

Gonna be real busy for game wardens this coming fall. Landowners will be up in arms and speaking to state reps to close this down. Gonna get real interesting. Central MT vs nonresident and resident hunters will be a real cluster. Will be staying out of this. MTG

 

[Whiskey Freak]

This will kill some of the property values where the realtors sell it based off land that's landlocked.

 

[Toofdoc]

This will kill some of the property values where the realtors sell it based off land that's landlocked.

Also, I wonder if ranch hunts now may charge less as more land becomes available.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Also, I wonder if ranch hunts now may charge less as more land becomes available.

I doubt it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This will kill some of the property values where the realtors sell it based off land that's landlocked.

Interest rates and coastal interest levels in the mountain west will be drivers of price moves, not this.

 

[BuzzH]

This will kill some of the property values where the realtors sell it based off land that's landlocked.

Yeah, right. The realtor Eshelman paid off to lie about devaluing ranches, James Rinehart, said if they lost this case he would immediately have to lower listing prices 30%.

I guess he just gotten around to doing so yet. He hasn't lowered listing prices a penny.

All BS.

 

[antlerradar]

I doubt it.

more like not a snowballs chance in hell

 

[Whiskey Freak]

Interest rates and coastal interest levels in the mountain west will be drivers of price moves, not this.

I’m just saying if I were to buy a ranch lets say 10,000 acres and they said there’s another 3,000 acres of public land that’s only accessible through your property, would it be worth more to me? Yes.

 

[elevatorman]

If the private property folks are mad,why don't they put up a fence blocking off their corner? I know that's what I'd do