Caribou Gear

Corner Crossing latest

Had I not had to work, I would have enjoyed listening in. Are they going to post the recording after the fact?
 
@Elky Welky Wonder if this gets appealed to the supreme court?

see link here.
SCOTUS takes a very limited number of cases. If the hunters win this appeal, even if the landowner requests review from the supreme court, I highly doubt they will take up the case.

Just to clarify, if the hunters win, the only states where corner crossing will be explicitly legal based upon this case will be: WY, CO, OK, NM, UT, and KS.
 
SCOTUS takes a very limited number of cases. If the hunters win this appeal, even if the landowner requests review from the supreme court, I highly doubt they will take up the case.

Just to clarify, if the hunters win, the only states where corner crossing will be explicitly legal based upon this case will be: WY, CO, OK, NM, UT, and KS.
Why just those states?
 
SCOTUS takes a very limited number of cases. If the hunters win this appeal, even if the landowner requests review from the supreme court, I highly doubt they will take up the case.

Just to clarify, if the hunters win, the only states where corner crossing will be explicitly legal based upon this case will be: WY, CO, OK, NM, UT, and KS.
It seems unfair that the supreme court wouldnt want to take this one up based on the land/resources/people affected though, right? Especially considering a lot of this is concerning federally owned land - and itd seem like that since the federal government is managing the land uses/access.
 
It seems unfair that the supreme court wouldnt want to take this one up based on the land/resources/people affected though, right? Especially considering a lot of this is concerning federally owned land - and itd seem like that since the federal government is managing the land uses/access.
The court only hears about 100-150 of roughly 7000 cases that come before them, and often they hear the cases that satisfy political whims and contemporary national issues. The tenth circuit ruling, although not law, could be highly persuasive in other circuits. If another case came up in the ninth circuit (MT, ID, and the west coast, AK, and Hawaii), and the 9th circuit rules the other way, then there will be a "circuit split" which could become more interesting (dare I say... "appealing") for SCOTUS to take up.

Of course, someone could just buy Justice Thomas a new Winnebago and he might be more interested in hearing the case.
 
I thought that if SCOTUS declines to hear the case then it’s upholding the lower court’s decision therefore anyone could use the ruling of the 10th.
 
I thought that if SCOTUS declines to hear the case then it’s upholding the lower court’s decision therefore anyone could use the ruling of the 10th.
No, it just means the lower court's ruling still only applies in the 10th, and in the other circuits it remains an open question. In the other circuits it becomes "persuasive" authority but it is not "precedent," and if they choose to reject it they can.
 
The court only hears about 100-150 of roughly 7000 cases that come before them, and often they hear the cases that satisfy political whims and contemporary national issues. The tenth circuit ruling, although not law, could be highly persuasive in other circuits. If another case came up in the ninth circuit (MT, ID, and the west coast, AK, and Hawaii), and the 9th circuit rules the other way, then there will be a "circuit split" which could become more interesting (dare I say... "appealing") for SCOTUS to take up.

Of course, someone could just buy Justice Thomas a new Winnebago and he might be more interested in hearing the case.
Ha - hes not the only one whos wined and dined by special interest. Breyer and the feminist lord ginsburg were the same way.

Not condoning it - just expanding your complaint.
 
You guys are way over thinking this. Self insured. Follow the blueprint
 
Angus Thuermer doing a great reporting job also picked up on this strong signal from one of the appellate Judges.

“A federal appeals judge Tuesday suggested Congress clearly meant for the public to access federal property in the checkerboard pattern of land ownership in Wyoming as he queried attorneys in a highly watched corner-crossing trespass case here.

Senior Judge David Ebel asked how Congress would have answered the question of whether it intended railroad companies — who were granted every other square-mile section on the checkerboard landscape — to be able to block public access to the other squares of public land.

In his framing of the case, Ebel opened the door to an interpretation that the owner of the Elk Mountain Ranch in Carbon County could not block four Missouri hunters — or the rest of the public — from corner crossing to reach public land.” https://wyofile.com/federal-appeals-judges-test-theory-that-corner-crossing-is-not-trespassing/
 
“Is there any way,” she asked, “for [the hunters] to access in a less intrusive way than helicopter?”
Anderson said no.
What about foot? Feet vs Helicopter?? smh
 
Can we just agree that anyone in political, corporate, or any position of power regardless of their location on the spectrum is getting favorable attention from some group somewhere and quit pretending it's only the other guys? Corner crossing topic is way more interesting and important than some asshat in DC getting a free dinner at Ruth's Chris
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,459
Messages
1,959,764
Members
35,185
Latest member
Pam Fetzner
Back
Top