I honestly think it works against the defendant. The judge has already denied the change of venue before all this social media #BS started. It’s going to be hard to convince a judge that the jury pool is now no longer big enough because of crap the defendant did after that original motion.
You’re probably right, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try and stall the process with all of the theatrics. If nothing else it lays the grounds for an appeal attempt.
Might not want to say that….as mentioned before even if he’s a sh***y dude, the landowner can revoke permission at ANY time in Idaho.
Wow…the jock strap rider comments are something
There is an element of *glug glug* to it.
One of of the oldest principles of common law is sanctity of contracts. A landowner who grants permission to trespass, especially if it's in writing, cannot simply revoke it out of hand ... not without cause. If I sign in at a BMA box, I am guaranteed the right to hunt the property during the date I'm signed in. BUT I must comply with the landowner's rules for accessing the property printed on the back of each BMA map, copies of which should be available when signing in. A few years back I walked up on a couple of guys stuck in the mud and tearing up a BMA field. I chewed their ass. The map rules clearly specify no driving on the property access roads when conditions are muddy AND the landowner even put a sign above the box stating the same thing! Their position was they signed in and landowner was getting their license fee money so they had paid for the right of access when and how THEY wanted. I photographed them and hotfooted it back to the ranch house. Before I could get there, they left. Not sure what Fred did about it. He does have the right to refuse them access permanently but I suspect that takes some action from FWP. Similarly, on another property I confronted a hunter who was smoking. Did he check the map rules to see if it's allowed? Yes, some landowners do not allow smoking. Better check the rules on the map. It's a fire hazard and wildfires in that country can be disastrous (like thousands of miles of fencing gone in a flash).
I certainly agree with you that a contract is a contract and should be enforceable, where there's a mutuality of rights/obligations by both parties.
Idaho legislature makes dam sure every law is tilted towards landowners.
incorrect. Absent an easement contract it is entirely revocable at any time, and for any whim.
Not true. If I’m a landowner who gives someone permission to hunt my place and then decide I want them to stop hunting there that’s not a breach of contract. The hunter isn’t a tenant and has no rights to my property other than what I give him.
I appreciate where people are coming from. Generally, in a contract (which as someone else noted is or could be different from a permission slip required or governed by a state statute), if a party can terminate it only for cause, the contract should say that. If such a provision is not in there and they think the other side terminated unfairly, perhaps a party can raise an argument there's been a breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (if Idaho has that sort of thing which I assume so but none of this is legal advice because I have no idea).
