In a landmark decision on March 18, 2025, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the legality of “corner crossing” in Wyoming’s checkerboard land areas, significantly impacting public land access rights across the American West.
Understanding Corner Crossing
“Corner crossing” refers to the practice of accessing public land by stepping over the corner points where four properties meet, without physically touching private land. This method is particularly relevant in regions like Wyoming, where public and private lands alternate in a checkerboard pattern, often leading to public lands being surrounded by private property.
Case Background
The case originated in 2021 when four hunters from Missouri used corner crossing to access public lands for elk and deer hunting on Elk Mountain in Carbon County. Fred Eshelman, owner of the adjacent Elk Mountain Ranch, filed civil trespassing charges against the hunters, arguing that their actions infringed upon his property rights.
Initially, a Wyoming federal judge ruled in favor of the hunters, stating that corner crossing did not constitute trespassing as long as private land was not physically touched. Eshelman appealed the decision, leading to the recent ruling by the 10th Circuit Court.
Court’s Ruling
The three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that private landowners cannot obstruct access to federal public lands by blocking corner crossings. The judges referenced the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885, which prohibits landowners from denying access to public lands, reinforcing that corner crossing does not violate property rights when it avoids physical contact with private land.
WYOFILE
Implications of the Decision
This ruling has broad implications, not only for Wyoming but also for other western states with similar land configurations. The 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction includes Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, and New Mexico, all of which feature checkerboard land patterns. The decision clarifies that corner crossing is legal in these states, provided private land is not physically contacted.
YAHOO
The case highlights the tension between private landowners seeking to control access to adjacent public lands and the public’s right to utilize federal lands for recreational purposes. It underscores the necessity for clear legal guidelines to balance property rights with public access, especially in regions with complex land ownership patterns.
Disclaimer – Our editorial team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and eliminate any potential misinformation. We are dedicated to upholding the highest standards of integrity in our content.