Wyoming corner crossing verdict

[P Carter]

The hunters are being sued for more than $50,000. That's currently in federal court. The ranch lawyers are asking for the case to be returned to state court. I would wait to see what comes from that before jumping every corner in Carbon County. If it stays in federal court, case law will be made with the civil suit for the 10th Circuit. If the landowner loses, appeals, and the 10th Circuit rejects hearing it, then that will give you guidance. If the hunters lose, appeal, and the 10th Circuit agrees or disagrees with the hunters, then you will have guidance. That's the real game, IMO.

Not to overly nit pick, but the losing party in federal district court can appeal as of right to the tenth circuit. The tenth circuit can’t decline it. Only the Supreme Court chooses which appeals to take. You’re correct though, generally—if there’s an appeal on the merits of the case, it’ll be binding precedent within the tenth circuit if decided on a matter of federal law, or binding in Wyoming federal courts (and nearly so in state courts) if decided on a matter of state law.

 

[307]

Would it be too soon to hire a mariachi band to prance carefully yet majestically across the corner while playing at full volume?

Asking for a friend...

 

[HvyBeams]

Not to overly nit pick, but the losing party in federal district court can appeal as of right to the tenth circuit. The tenth circuit can’t decline it. Only the Supreme Court chooses which appeals to take. You’re correct though, generally—if there’s an appeal on the merits of the case, it’ll be binding precedent within the tenth circuit if decided on a matter of federal law, or binding in Wyoming federal courts (and nearly so in state courts) if decided on a matter of state law.

I appreciate the response and the clarification.

 

[Squincher]

Ditto. Glad that there's now precedent. At least in WY.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

This doesn't set precedent anymore than someone beating a speeding ticket makes it legal to speed. That would take a ruling from at least the appellate court. The Wyoming Supreme Court would be better, and SCOTUS would be best of all. If the case ends at the trial level in civil court as well, this will have accomplished nothing going forward.

 

[BuzzH]

This doesn't set precedent anymore than someone beating a speeding ticket makes it legal to speed. That would take a ruling from at least the appellate court. The Wyoming Supreme Court would be better, and SCOTUS would be best of all. If the case ends at the trial level in civil court as well, this will have accomplished nothing going forward.

Can you show me a single case that has been prosecuted successfully in Wyoming for corner crossing in any county?

Yeah, I cant find one either...but I can now point to 3 that weren't.

It may not set precedence, but it sure as hell sends a message.

Also, the civil case at this point has moved to Federal Court, and that will set precedence.

Are you always this sour? Must be a real fun guy at a party...

 

[Wyobohunter]

This doesn't set precedent anymore than someone beating a speeding ticket makes it legal to speed. That would take a ruling from at least the appellate court. The Wyoming Supreme Court would be better, and SCOTUS would be best of all. If the case ends at the trial level in civil court as well, this will have accomplished nothing going forward.

Probably so. I’ll still pitch in for the mariachi band.

 

[P Carter]

This doesn't set precedent anymore than someone beating a speeding ticket makes it legal to speed. That would take a ruling from at least the appellate court. The Wyoming Supreme Court would be better, and SCOTUS would be best of all. If the case ends at the trial level in civil court as well, this will have accomplished nothing going forward.

SCOTUS won’t answer a question of state law, only federal law. But yes, other than that I think you’re right on the precedent question.

 

[Squincher]

Can you show me a single case that has been prosecuted successfully in Wyoming for corner crossing in any county?

Yeah, I cant find one either...but I can now point to 3 that weren't.

It may not set precedence, but it sure as hell sends a message.

Also, the civil case at this point has moved to Federal Court, and that will set precedence.

Are you always this sour? Must be a real fun guy at a party...

Getting upset by factual information is a mark of immaturity. Confusing a website with a party must be either stupidity or insanity. I don't think you're crazy.

 

[307]

Getting upset by factual information is a mark of immaturity. Confusing a website with a party must be either stupidity or insanity. I don't think you're crazy.

Who is upset? The guy who is name calling or the guy who is stating simple facts?

 

[Squincher]

Who is upset? The guy who is name calling or the guy who is stating simple facts?

Or the guy who can't mind his own business?

 

[BuzzH]

Or the guy who can't mind his own business?

What business of yours is this case? How many hours did you spend involved with it? How much money did you donate?

You don't get to ruin this obvious win for public land hunters.

Sorry, better luck next time.

 

[307]

Or the guy who can't mind his own business?

Haha. It's a DISCUSSION FORUM... WTF do you expect?

 

[Jbehredt]

SCOTUS won’t answer a question of state law, only federal law. But yes, other than that I think you’re right on the precedent question.

Would federal land on two corners be enough to to get them involved?

 

[rodney482]

In the short term, maybe it will make landowners think twice about trying to prosecute corner crossers. I like the verdict, but I also like things to be black and white and there is still a whole lot of gray area surrounding the corner crossing issue.

Should make prosecutors hesitant… they hate losing and this one just lost huge.

 

[P Carter]

Would federal land on two corners be enough to to get them involved?

Not unless the case involved a question of federal law. This was a prosecution under Wyoming state law, with no issues of federal law (as I understand it at least), so there’s no basis for scotus involvement.

 

[Will_m]

Unless that went to the appellate level, it’s not precedent, technically.

 

[tdhanses]

SCOTUS won’t answer a question of state law, only federal law. But yes, other than that I think you’re right on the precedent question.

Yeah I don’t see the SCOTUS touching this case, if it even gets to that point.

 

[tdhanses]

Should make prosecutors hesitant… they hate losing and this one just lost huge.

They still prosecute speeding tickets yet lose on those cases all the time, I wonder if the jury would of made the same decision if the landowner wasn’t a NR rich guy, if it was a 5th gen rancher just making a living would the outcome be the same.

 

[blackdawg]

I like the way you think!

That is one sho nuff fine huntin mule, the peasantry best stick to finding plans for folding ladders cause them rich non-residents will out bid ya for that one at the Jake Clark’s mule day sale! The DIY gear modification forum should explode with new ideas!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rodney482]

They still prosecute speeding tickets yet lose on those cases all the time, I wonder if the jury would of made the same decision if the landowner wasn’t a NR rich guy, if it was a 5th gen rancher just making a living would the outcome be the same.

Not an infraction …. No one cares about a speeding ticket bench trial…. This was a huge case.

My guess is the jury utilized common sense and said this is just ridiculous.

*30 years leo and have never lost a speeding ticket. Trying to compare a trial being watch by millions to a traffic ticket is laughable