Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[VikingsGuy]

...

I think #2 is also known as the Common Sense Ruling. As such, it has no chance.

Is Vegas posting odds on all the different options?

East of the Mississippi reason typically wins in property cases. West of the Mississippi the tyranny of the large landowner seems to live forever.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It is their own fault for having stuff and being upset when someone takes it.

External Locus of Control

I got yelled at by a warden for a hat that wasn't orange enough... did I keep wearing it and then perhaps have another encounter and then another...and the proceed to get all butt hurt about those and say all wardens suck... no I bought a new freaking hat.

 

[BrentD]

External Locus of Control

I got yelled at by a warden for a hat that wasn't orange enough... did I keep wearing it and then perhaps have another encounter and then another...and the proceed to get all but hurt about those and say all wardens suck... no I bought a new freaking hat.

There ya go, always taking Easy Street when you could be miserable and hoarse from ranting and screaming.

What's the matter with you?

Note to all Be like Will. The World will be better for it.

 

[JM77]

For the last 500 years, the case law has chosen to recognize a "vertical" element to property boundaries. At the elevations we are talking about here (0-30 ft), the vast majority of the case law would support literal trespass by stepping over a corner. And I am not going to google it for you - I have cited one SCOTUS case in the past and there are dozens more readily findable cases and a few decent law review summaries.

As for 5thA -- both you and Pestcontol get it wrong. If an action is a common-law physical trespass, a government easement to grant the access to void the trespass is a "taking" in the vast majority of cases. But of course, the real question is what is the amount of remuneration for such a taking. In one case about running cableTV lines without an easement, SCOTUS found trespass, found a taking, and awarded the plaintiff $1. Again, I am not googling for you or others. The law is the law regardless of whether I provide you case law citation. Feel free to do your own googling.

So we have three simple answers:

(1) The courts change 500 years of case law and vanquish trespass above ground level - if you think this through you can imagine a myriad of unintended consequences outside the arena of checkerboard hunting if they do this, so I prefer that they don't take this approach.

(2) State legislatures pass laws that remove non-destructive, good faith, corner crossing from the scope of criminal or civil trespass law. This is my preferred answer.

(3) The federal government invokes eminent domain to grant recreational "non-destructive" 15 foot wide walking easement across all corners necessary to access federal lands outside the city limits of any town that has a federal post office. Land that actively has unharvested row crops would be exempted. The takings value of these easements will be set at $25 per corner (which is more than the courts will give in most places if folks actually bother to read the takings valuation case law - I am not googling that for folks either). This is my second choice as it does not solve state land corners, but it would be a big help.

Are you saying there is a SCOTUS case related to stepping over a corner?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Are you saying there is a SCOTUS case related to stepping over a corner?

There are several cases on trespass into the “vertical space” above a property line. Where along the property line, in what manner you do so and for what purpose are irrelevant. There is no need to have a hunting corner case for it to be the current governing law.

(God I hate jailhouse lawyering)

 

[Irrelevant]

There are several cases on trespass into the “vertical space” above a property line. Where along the property line, in what manner you do so and for what purpose are irrelevant. There is no need to have a hunting corner case for it to be the current governing law.

(God I hate jailhouse lawyering)

Vertical space... except all that floating "vertical space" you can boat over. Or as the spreadsheet master himself alluded to, all of the elbow trespassing that occurs along every sidewalk.

You seem to be painting a picture that is very clear and concise, yet we wouldn't be where we are if it was clear and concise.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Vertical space... except all that floating "vertical space" you can boat over. Or as the spreadsheet master himself alluded to, all of the elbow trespassing that occurs along every sidewalk.

You seem to be painting a picture that is very clear and concise, yet we wouldn't be where we are if it was clear and concise.

Waterways have a whole other body of law.

And none of this is simple and many locals have chosen to resolve in different manners.

My point is that in places where they have not chosen to change it (WY), the old law is the starting point. My point is that Big Fin’s legal opinion likely accurately defines the current state. My point is “what aboutisms” and demand that others cite case law to one’s liking does nothing to change the status quo.

 

[JM77]

(God I hate jailhouse lawyering)

There are other places you can frequent if the peasants aren't pleasing you.

 

[VikingsGuy]

There are other places you can frequent if the peasants aren't pleasing you.

Nahh, 99% of Hunttalkers are fine in my book.

 

[grizzly_]

It appears some people "practice" law. Others have it all figured out.

I, long ago, looked for attorneys that considered nuance. I can't remember the last time my attorney spoke in absolutism.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It appears some people "practice" law. Others have it all figured out.

I, long ago, looked for attorneys that considered nuance. I can't remember the last time my attorney spoke in absolutism.

To see the nuance you must first see the reality in which to apply it. No nuance in grossly mischaracterizing the 5A, dismissing out of hand qualified legal opinions rendered for BigFin, or randomly demanding others do your googling for you, but YMMV.

 

[Oak]

Once this thread slows down again, how about someone bring up the hypothetical legality of shooting from one parcel of BLM to another across private land....

 

[Dakotakid]

Once this thread slows down again, how about someone bring up the hypothetical legality of shooting from one parcel of BLM to another across private land....

That is not actually a hypothetical. I know of a sheriff dealing with that issue. I would welcome any education on what the law says.

 

[BuzzH]

To see the nuance you must first see the reality in which to apply it. No nuance in grossly mischaracterizing the 5A, dismissing out of hand qualified legal opinions rendered for BigFin, or randomly demanding others do your googling for you, but YMMV.

Maybe we should all remember that next time you ask for some advice on a hunting area in Wyoming...or some information about hunting equipment.

Do your own googling.

 

[JM77]

Once this thread slows down again, how about someone bring up the hypothetical legality of shooting from one parcel of BLM to another across private land....

That is illegal in Wyoming.

 

[WyoDoug]

A bill to potentially make corner crossing "legal" in Wyoming comes up in the legistlature every year and usually dies in committee due to powerful lawmakers who seem to represent the landowners rather than those who want public access to public land.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Maybe we should all remember that next time you ask for some advice on a hunting area in Wyoming...or some information about hunting equipment.

Do your own googling.

If I ask for expert advice and then repeatedly reject the expert advice and begin to pretend I am the expert and further demand people provide formal cites for their recommendations then feel free to use that line on me. Otherwise, apples and oranges.

 

[BuzzH]

If I ask for expert advice and then repeatedly reject the expert advice and begin to pretend I am the expert and further demand people provide formal cites for their recommendations then feel free to use that line on me. Otherwise, apples and oranges.

We've received plenty of legal advice and help from other attorneys in 3 states, pretty large firms at that, offering to help rather than run static (pro bono as well)...they don't seem to agree with your assessment of this case.

Maybe you're right and they're all wrong...who knows?

But what I do appreciate is they're at least trying to be helpful, rather than sending us to google.

 

[VikingsGuy]

We've received plenty of legal advice and help from other attorneys in 3 states, pretty large firms at that, offering to help rather than run static (pro bono as well)...they don't seem to agree with your assessment of this case.

Maybe you're right and they're all wrong...who knows?

But what I do appreciate is they're at least trying to be helpful, rather than sending us to google.

Go back and read my replies to this and five other similar threads. I think WY’s overly ridgid approach to property is not good and is out of step with other states that have a more flexible framework. I believe there is a strong public policy basis to change the law as it relates to public land access. I believe it is worth the fight. If my son and I would have gotten ticketed a few years ago I would have fought it. I believe we should do more as public land advocates to push the landlocked issue and have proposed a number of possible approaches on these threads. I donated to the go fund me.

My most recent replies that seem to have gotten your goat were directed at comments by others that misstated the current law/constitution as they stand. I assume your lawyers acknowledged the historical approach I referenced and believe they can overcome that. I would likely agree with your lawyers. There is where the law is, where the law might go and what risk appetite one has for the difference. I think acknowledging those as three different things is the right way to view any legal question.

 

[JM77]

So much for historical approach.

Straight from the American Bar Assoc:

"Causby Did Not Establish a Property Right in Airspace. Property rights advocates often assert that Causby established a property right in the airspace above a person’s real property. In so doing, they pull two quotes from the opinion: first, “the landowner . . . must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere”; and, second, “the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to [the superadjacent airspace] and . . . invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface.”12 However, these quotes cannot be divorced from their context or the ultimate holding of the case. The ellipses in the first quote hold an important qualification. The quote in full is: “t is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.”13 The full quote makes clear that it is only in the context of enjoyment of the land that a property owner has any control over the airspace at all. Similarly, the sentence that directly precedes the second quote is: “The superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself.”14 Thus, Causby makes plain that the only “claim” that a property owner has in regard to airspace occurs when frequent flights within the airspace affect the use of the ground.15 Read in context, these cherry-picked statements are entirely consistent with the aerial trespass doctrine and do not support the notion that a landowner has a property right in the airspace itself."