Corner crossing SCOTUS appeal

[BuzzH]

Just getting around to reading the petition doc. Looks like they are using Leo Sheep Co v. US. In Leo Sheep the US built a road to a lake. Somehow the attorney is going to argue that stepping across a corner is equal to building a road? Can Eminent Domain apply to air? This is going to get crazy, so I suspect the SCOTUS will pass.

From the news article.
The petition argues that in a case known as Leo Sheep the Supreme Court decided against the federal government having any kind of easement across corners. “The relevant question in Leo Sheep was not about how the public accessed the land but whether the government had an access right at all,” the petition states.

From the petition, which I take some exception to, but precedent and "accepted understanding" doesn't seem to have much weight with this court.

The Tenth Circuit’s decision upended decades of accepted understanding—shared by federal and state officials—that corner-crossing is unlawful, and the opinion below has caused confusion about the limits of its holding.

The Tenth Circuit’s decision upended decades of accepted understanding—shared by federal and state officials—that corner-crossing is unlawful, and the opinion below has caused confusion about the limits of its holding.

If the above is remotely true, then show me the law, rule, or regulation at a state or federal level that states corner crossing is illegal. Name a state that has a law to that effect. It's unbelievable how attorneys flat out lie, there has never been an accepted understanding of jack shit in regard to corner crossing. At best it's been a gray area my whole life.

 

[SAJ-99]

The Tenth Circuit’s decision upended decades of accepted understanding—shared by federal and state officials—that corner-crossing is unlawful, and the opinion below has caused confusion about the limits of its holding.

If the above is remotely true, then show me the law, rule, or regulation at a state or federal level that states corner crossing is illegal. Name a state that has a law to that effect. It's unbelievable how attorneys flat out lie, there has never been an accepted understanding of jack shit in regard to corner crossing. At best it's been a gray area my whole life.

Agree. I can’t figure out why he would write that, other than we live in a world where people form alternative realities and think if you say something long enough and loud enough is will be believed to be true.

 

[44hunter45]

Just getting around to reading the petition doc. Looks like they are using Leo Sheep Co v. US. In Leo Sheep the US built a road to a lake. Somehow the attorney is going to argue that stepping across a corner is equal to building a road? Can Eminent Domain apply to air? This is going to get crazy, so I suspect the SCOTUS will pass.

From the news article.
The petition argues that in a case known as Leo Sheep the Supreme Court decided against the federal government having any kind of easement across corners. “The relevant question in Leo Sheep was not about how the public accessed the land but whether the government had an access right at all,” the petition states.

From the petition, which I take some exception to, but precedent and "accepted understanding" doesn't seem to have much weight with this court.

The Tenth Circuit’s decision upended decades of accepted understanding—shared by federal and state officials—that corner-crossing is unlawful, and the opinion below has caused confusion about the limits of its holding.

There is a difference between "Accepted Understanding" and untested in court. The Unlawful Enclosures Act has survived many challenges. There are no doubt many other "Accepted Understandings" which should be tested in court. It is in the best interest of those who hold the advantage to prevent them from being tested.

The quoted statement from the petition is fallacious. Which we all know is Redneck Latin for, "Blow Me"

Like you, I don't see the plaintiff's team getting anywhere with that argument.

 

[SAJ-99]

Like you, I don't see the plaintiff's team getting anywhere with that argument.

Hope you’re right. Anyone know if Eshelman has a yacht? I hear there is at least one member of the court that might be swayed by a good yacht vaca.

 

[Wildabeest]

Hope you’re right. Anyone know if Eshelman has a yacht? I hear there is at least one member of the court that might be swayed by a good yacht vaca.

He has a very nice boat, and a fat ass beach house. Whether it qualifies as a yacht, I don’t know.

 

[Thx1138]

Imagine that……Woulda thunk it…….

The Wyoming Stock Growers Association and others have indicated they will file briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court as Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman petitions justices to review his lower-court loss in the corner-crossing conflict.

Along with the stock growers, the Wyoming Wool Growers Association and the Montana Stockgrowers Association will file amicus briefs with the nation’s high court, Stock Growers Executive Vice President Jim Magagna said Thursday. United Property Owners of Montana also notified Ryan Semerad, an attorney for the appellees, that it intends to file a brief, Semerad said Thursday.

Stock growers will join corner-crossing pleadings in Supreme Court - WyoFile

Hunters ask for another 30 days to respond to Eshelman's petition for high court review.

wyofile.com

 

[SAJ-99]

Imagine that……Woulda thunk it…….

The Wyoming Stock Growers Association and others have indicated they will file briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court as Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman petitions justices to review his lower-court loss in the corner-crossing conflict.

Along with the stock growers, the Wyoming Wool Growers Association and the Montana Stockgrowers Association will file amicus briefs with the nation’s high court, Stock Growers Executive Vice President Jim Magagna said Thursday. United Property Owners of Montana also notified Ryan Semerad, an attorney for the appellees, that it intends to file a brief, Semerad said Thursday.

Stock growers will join corner-crossing pleadings in Supreme Court - WyoFile

Hunters ask for another 30 days to respond to Eshelman's petition for high court review.

wyofile.com

I need some soon to be retired lawyers to chime in on what exactly the options are here. Seems taking the case isn’t necessarily a bad thing, so the amicus briefs are not something to get worked up about.
SCOTUs could…
1) reject the case. The result stays as it is now with corner crossing applying to that circuit only.
2) send the case back to the appellate court and ask them to put more clarity in the decision. Impact unknown for average Joe.
3) take the case and…
A) confirm and clarify the appellate court ruling making it apply to the entire country. Great.
B) reverse the decision. Bad.

Tried to simplify. Am I missing something?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I need some soon to be retired lawyers to chime in on what exactly the options are here. Seems taking the case isn’t necessarily a bad thing, so the amicus briefs are not something to get worked up about.
SCOTUs could…
1) reject the case. The result stays as it is now with corner crossing applying to that circuit only.
2) send the case back to the appellate court and ask them to put more clarity in the decision. Impact unknown for average Joe.
3) take the case and…
A) confirm and clarify the appellate court ruling making it apply to the entire country. Great.
B) reverse the decision. Bad.

Tried to simplify. Am I missing something?

First stage is to accept or reject the appeal - they can take their time with this - it takes four justices to support granting review. This is entirely at their discretion and does not necessarily imply that that agree or disagree with the lower ruling, it can be denied for other reasons like work load, general importance level, whether or not the facts and lower rulings set up the question well, etc. Folks can, and do, submit amicus briefs at this first phase laying out their reasons that review should or should not be granted.

It would be unusual for them to ask the lower courts for clarity, but in theory they can choose not to review but instead provide the lower court specific instructions as how to proceed. This most commonly happens if they have recently made a ruling that may change the lower court's analysis had it been available earlier in the proceedings. Doesn't really seem like a thing in this case.

They can also simply rule in favor of one party or the other without further proceedings ('shadow docket'), but again, seems unlikely on these facts.

If they grant review (commonly referred to as 'cert') they will frame the specific questions they are willing to hear. For example, they could only take up a standing question, but not some other substantive issue. Or if the parties raises several issues they could target a subset of those. In some cases they even frame a question generally raised by the dispute but not actually called out by the parties in their appeals.

If they grant review, the normal process follows, including another chance for third parties to submit their thoughts in the form of amicus briefs on the merits.

After oral arguments they could rule for the plaintiff, the defendants, in part for each or dismiss the appeal as imprudently granted now that they see the fuller picture.

 

[BuzzH]

I need some soon to be retired lawyers to chime in on what exactly the options are here. Seems taking the case isn’t necessarily a bad thing, so the amicus briefs are not something to get worked up about.
SCOTUs could…
1) reject the case. The result stays as it is now with corner crossing applying to that circuit only.
2) send the case back to the appellate court and ask them to put more clarity in the decision. Impact unknown for average Joe.
3) take the case and…
A) confirm and clarify the appellate court ruling making it apply to the entire country. Great.
B) reverse the decision. Bad.

Tried to simplify. Am I missing something?

Good place to ask and have your questions answered next week directly from Ryan (although @VikingsGuy answered it).

We will also have Sabrina King on the call to address what's happening with State Legislation to address corner crossing.

Corner Crossing Conversation with Ryan Semerad

Join BHA for a virtual pint night with special guest Ryan Semerad, the attorney for the corner crossing Supreme Court case, as we dig into one of the most important public access issues of our time.

www.backcountryhunters.org

 

[thusby]

Yet another reason to never buy wool products from the USA.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yet another reason to never buy wool products from the USA.

Making Australia Great Again??

 

[Deleted member 16864]

Making Australia Great Again??

Chinese talking points.

 

[rogerthat]

Yet another reason to never buy wool products from the USA.

Not to even mention the unapologetic unrelenting destruction to bighorn sheep populations. I hope the Supreme Court hears it while wearing their Velcro chaps.

 

[Thx1138]

Who’d a thunk it….Now the billionaires coming out to support ole Fred….

Attorney who backed Trump on Jan. 6 now urging Supreme Court to hear corner-crossing case​

Attorney who backed Trump on Jan. 6 now urging Supreme Court to hear corner-crossing case - WyoFile

John Eastman says high court should hear matter “because it affects so much private property.”

wyofile.com

 

[Bluffgruff]

I put some money in the pot for the good guys today. Everyone else should too.

 

[TOGIE]

said pot:

Corner Crossing Supreme Court Fight

The corner crossing issue is now headed to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, and BHA is once again rallying public land owners across the nation to help fund this fight for public access to public lands once and for all. If the Supreme Court takes the case it will establish...

www.backcountryhunters.org

 

[300stw]

I put some money in the pot for the good guys today. Everyone else should too.

added to the pot and shared on facebook

 

[appaloosa]

added to the pot and shared on facebook

Ditto

 

[warmer]

added

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Help me out here - It's only appropriate to take a side after the court has agreed to hear it?

And some strange bedfellows on this one..



Regardless, more moneys have been sent to BHA to support the fight. Thanks for posting the link.