Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[VikingsGuy]

So unless this decision is overruled by appeal, is there any chance a person could still be prosecuted in WY for corner crossing or is now legal? This might seem like a stupid question but I'm a better safe than sorry guy especially being a non-resident to WY.

Legally, still uncertain. Practically, my guess is sheriffs are a little less likely to arrest and prosecutors a little less likely to charge than before this pair of cases. But you if are looking for zero risk, zero cost, we aren't there yet.

 

[JM77]

I have not yet read the ruling but will offer general context. I will try to track down the actual ruling and give other thoughts later. (if you already have it post a link or PM it)

This is a case arising out of federal diversity jurisdiction and a federal question. This means the federal court is charged with applying WY state law as applied by the Supreme Court of WY, and federal law as applied by the federal courts on different issues within the case. That means appeals could go in several directions.

On matters of state law, a federal district court's ruling is NOT binding precedent on any state court at any level. It is binding in that specific federal court geography alone and even then only on federal law matters.

If the parties believe the federal court misinterpreted state law they can appeal to the WY Supreme Court. If they believe the federal legal approach to applying the state law, or the interpretation of the federal law elements, were wrong they can go to the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The 10th circ. can reverse but even that is not binding on any state court - but is binding on federal matters in the variety of states under 10th circuit (this does not include MT or ID for example).

If a WY state supreme court ruling or the 10th circ ruling is unacceptable appeals can be made to SCOTUS - a SCOTUS ruling is binding on all state and federal courts.

Also, depending on the specific ruling, there may be state by state legislative responses that could muddy the waters for hunters. It is also not clear that criminal trespass was at issue - this was a civil case and the outcomes could (shouldn't but could) vary.

If I was a checkerboard land owner outside of WY, I would pay this landowner not to appeal - just let it sit in WY. Failure to appeal does not add any authority to a ruling so it is not uncommon for folks with broad interests to let district court rulings sit rather than expanding the problem.

So, congratulations to all those involved in a great win, but this is not yet a simple get-out-of-jail-free card across the west. For now, it is best viewed as yet to be appealed "persuasive authority". A long way from established law - but a nice first step.

Pm me an email address and I can send you the ruling.

 

[elkduds]

Preliminary congratulations to the hunters charged, Buzz and WY BHA, all who supported this movement, and public land owners!

 

[perma]

The judge also agreed with Eshelman that he generally owns the airspace above his property and is entitled to use it.

This is the quote I still don’t fully understand. If that’s the case…? And just to be a smart@$$ about this comment, why isn’t he suing airlines like delta for flying over his land then?!

 

[VikingsGuy]

The judge also agreed with Eshelman that he generally owns the airspace above his property and is entitled to use it.

This is the quote I still don’t fully understand. If that’s the case…? And just to be a smart@$$ about this comment, why isn’t he suing airlines like delta for flying over his land then?!

A federal case from the 40s said that Fed govt could authorize air travel above 500ft without creating a trespass. It is a judge-made limitation to the starting point of the landowner owning vertically to the heavens.

Apparently from the news article, this court found a further limitation - that there was a public interest in limiting this starting assumption as it pertains to corner access to otherwise inaccessible public land.

 

[jryoung]

A sincere debt of gratitude to @BuzzH @JM77 and the WY Chapter of BHA and to everyone else who no matter how small did something to push this forward.

Well done.

 

[SAJ-99]

Legally, still uncertain. Practically, my guess is sheriffs are a little less likely to arrest and prosecutors a little less likely to charge than before this pair of cases. But you if are looking for zero risk, zero cost, we aren't there yet.

Thanks for the insight. Quick question, is there anything the WY Legislature could do in writing/change some law to make it illegal?

 

[Sheltowee]

Would be very interested to see the order granting the MSJ if anyone gets their hands on it.

 

[Sytes]

Here is the Summary Judgement Order by Skavdahl for any interested. PDF Attached.

It's 32 pages.

Last page snip:

 

[Sheltowee]

Here is the Summary Judgement Order by Skavdahl for any interested. PDF Attached.

It's 32 pages.

Last page snip:

View attachment 277474

Thank you!

 

[manitou1]

I have not yet read the ruling but will offer general context. I will try to track down the actual ruling and give other thoughts later. (if you already have it post a link or PM it)

This is a case arising out of federal diversity jurisdiction and a federal question. This means the federal court is charged with applying WY state law as applied by the Supreme Court of WY, and federal law as applied by the federal courts on different issues within the case. That means appeals could go in several directions.

On matters of state law, a federal district court's ruling is NOT binding precedent on any state court at any level. It is binding in that specific federal court geography alone and even then only on federal law matters.

If the parties believe the federal court misinterpreted state law they can appeal to the WY Supreme Court. If they believe the federal legal approach to applying the state law, or the interpretation of the federal law elements, were wrong they can go to the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The 10th circ. can reverse but even that is not binding on any state court - but is binding on federal matters in the variety of states under 10th circuit (this does not include MT or ID for example).

If a WY state supreme court ruling or the 10th circ ruling is unacceptable appeals can be made to SCOTUS - a SCOTUS ruling is binding on all state and federal courts.

Also, depending on the specific ruling, there may be state by state legislative responses that could muddy the waters for hunters. It is also not clear that criminal trespass was at issue - this was a civil case and the outcomes could (shouldn't but could) vary.

If I was a checkerboard land owner outside of WY, I would pay this landowner not to appeal - just let it sit in WY. Failure to appeal does not add any authority to a ruling so it is not uncommon for folks with broad interests to let district court rulings sit rather than expanding the problem.

So, congratulations to all those involved in a great win, but this is not yet a simple get-out-of-jail-free card across the west. For now, it is best viewed as yet to be appealed "persuasive authority". A long way from established law - but a nice first step.

Party pooper...

 

[VikingsGuy]

Thanks for the insight. Quick question, is there anything the WY Legislature could do in writing/change some law to make it illegal?

Depends on the specifics of the ruling, which I have not yet read. Federal pre-emption won't allow easy skirting of UIA portions of the ruling, but could probably mess around with criminal trespass, civil trespass, and F&G rules if they want to make this difficult.

 

[Nicoli7153]

about the appeal, what level does it go? This was at the district of Wyoming level and from there does it go to the appellate court now if they decide to try to appeal?

Do you think there will be lots of pressure from large land owners directly impacted by this in other states such as Montana and Colorado where there is also a lot of private/public land interfacing with corners for them to just walk away and don't appeal? Right now this ruling only lives in Wyoming so I would think landowners elsewhere might want to keep this on the down low and just go away.

Goes to the Federal circuit court of jurisdiction that the Federal district court lies within. Unless they file for a direct appeal (certiorari) to SCOTUS and it is granted

 

[VikingsGuy]

OK - I have read the court's ruling and it really couldn't have been any better for public land hunters in WY. He framed the issue in a way that will make it tricky for WY Supreme Court or WY legislature to mess with its core holding - 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.

As for appeal - I see no real reason to try WY Supreme Court given the federal spin the ruling pushed. So if landowner appeals it will be to 10th circ. I would guess the outcome on this will have a lot to do with which 3 judge panel gets pulled to hear it, as a reasonable court could certainly affirm, but a reasonable court also decide Mackay is not binding on 10th circuit, it is not sufficiently persuasive to "trample" private property rights and that the district court wrongly distinguished it from Leo.

If a 3 judge panel reverses, then there can be an en banc request (to re-hear with all judges of the circuit) and/or SCOTUS request. Only if it gets to SCOTUS and survives does this effect folks outside of federal courts in WY (or 10th circ depending on that ruling) and state courts.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Goes to the Federal circuit court of jurisdiction that the Federal district court lies within. Unless they file for a direct appeal (certiorari) to SCOTUS and it is granted

Unless BigFin has recently been placed on SCOTUS, zero chance of direct cert on a case like this.

 

[Big Fin]

I echo the big thanks to all who have been working so hard on this.

I remember a call with @JM77 when this case first went public. I explained that a prior law firm had advised me such would be civil trespass under a plan I had crafted to pull off here in Montana. Jeff made the case that these facts and circumstances, and Wyoming law, would make this case different. He was right. I was wrong, thankfully.

It will be interesting to see where it goes. The defendant's attorneys seem pretty confident the landowner will appeal. Prevailing there would be helpful to folks in the 10th Circuit who are outside of the Wyoming Federal Circuit.

Thanks to @JM77, @BuzzH, WY BHA, and the many others who helped these hunters from Missouri. Fingers crossed that the next steps provide similar results.

 

[Nicoli7153]

OK - I have read the court's ruling and it really couldn't have been any better for public land hunters in WY. He framed the issue in a way that will make it tricky for WY Supreme Court or WY legislature to mess with its core holding - 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.

As for appeal - I see no real reason to try WY Supreme Court given the federal spin the ruling pushed. So if landowner appeals it will be to 10th circ. I would guess the outcome on this will have a lot to do with which 3 judge panel gets pulled to hear it, as a reasonable court could certainly affirm, but a reasonable court also decide Mackay is not binding on 10th circuit, it is not sufficiently persuasive to "trample" private property rights and that the district court wrongly distinguished it from Leo.

If a 3 judge panel reverses, then there can be an en banc request (to re-hear with all judges of the circuit) and/or SCOTUS request. Only if it gets to SCOTUS and survives does this effect folks outside of federal courts in WY (or 10th circ depending on that ruling) and state courts.

Great analysis! It appears the scales are tipping in our favor!

 

[antlerradar]

Question for @VikingsGuy. Would there be an advantage for sportsman to get a case going in ID or MT, or would it be better to wait and see how this went in the tenth?

 

[cgasner1]

Should be a interesting year in wyoming

 

[VikingsGuy]

Question for @VikingsGuy. Would there be an advantage for sportsman to get a case going in ID or MT, or would it be better to wait and see how this went in the tenth?

IMO, good to have two circuits involved. If they both rule the way we want it pretty much covers the hunting west even if SCOTUS passes and it gives the other circuits food for thought. If they split it gives SCOTUS more reason to pick it up. At the same time, this is costly and risky business for those who poke the bear to get a reaction.