Posted on 03/28/2023 12:21:24 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court joined together with the appointees of former President Donald Trump in deciding in favor of Montana property owners fighting a federal land grab.
The Washington Examiner reported liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson united with Trump appointed Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of former President George W. Bush, voted in the minority.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Good summary.
Indeed it is. But again, the hunters never set foot on the private land.
They constructed an “a-frame” ladder and placed it over the corner of the properties in question. One side was on public land, as was the other. Nothing touched the private land.
What has happened is some of the landowners have closed off access to the public land and then they charge trespass fees across their property to the public land.
Wow. They really sound like children. All of ‘em.
CAM WE ALL CROSS INTO BIDEN’S PRIVATE LAND???
OBAMA’S???
Pelosi’s???
SCHUMER’S???
ANYONE entering or crossing MY private land will draw the attention of my best SENTINEL-—MY HORSE missing NOTHING.
Since I have LIVESTOCK-—I can shoot—MIGHT BE A RUSTLER
There is a time period involved-—I don’t remember what that is.
EASEMENTS usually only apply to UTILITIES-—and most have been in place for YEARS.
I think there is adverse possession ...
What are you talking about?
In Wilkins v the US
Previous owners and the U.S. Forest Service in 1962 negotiated a limited-use easement for the express purpose of timber harvesting in the National Fores
That’s really the existential key, aside from a homage to George Lucas’ film and “pray that we don’t alter the terms further”, the effective result of the minority’s opinion would be we gave you a 12 year limit to sue; that ended decades ago and today we’ve decided to build a 140,000 seat stadium right against your property and you’ve got no word to say about it. (An extreme example.)
The majority’s opinion effectively puts that on a rolling timeline when the government substantially changes the terms such as an easement for a logging road becomes a public road to forest lands.
I think the majority are wrong on the law, but I’m willing to take the loss here since it extends the rights of the public when the government makes substantial changes to an existing agreement. Congress can patch it if they really want to.
? Not sure what you mean. I wasn’t referring to this case specifically. I’ve read about both sides of the issue where sometimes the government reneges on previous agreements regarding rights of way or easements of whatever and also cases where private owners tried to close rights of way or paths that had been used by the general public. In the case of the property my wife and I looked at, the owner was the victim of a vague definition of the boundaries of the original easement (no survey posts).
PS, you're not dense.
I’m not qualified to discuss court procedures and the use, misuse or abuse of them by Judges and Lawyers, so I’ll have to go with your opinion.
This opinion will be interesting to read.
Several years ago looked at a really nice house that was for sale along with a fair amount of land (100 acres). My fiancé and I kept wondering why the property had been on the market for so long, as the price was so competitive.
Then found out that the property was embroiled in a title dispute between quarreling family members and was in the process of a quiet title action. We bailed once we found out the crazy claims and accusations family members were making against each other. We checked back a 1/2 year later - still not resolved, so just gave up. Found out later that the county judge was exasperated at this family that simply could not get along and resolve the dispute. The lawyers on all sides did well from the prolonged litigation.
Thanks for posting an explanation of what this mess is about!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.