The plaintiff's complaint is so contrived that I almost wonder if it's all a setup to get this law overturned. No judge in their right mind would award anything close to the damages that they're asking for, and their argument in favor of the damages is the perfect illustration for how bad the law is:

> Eshelman asserts that when the men corner-crossed — stepping from one piece of public land to another at a four-corner intersection with his ranch — they damaged him by up to $7.75 million.

> That’s based on a 25% devaluation of the Elk Mountain Ranch, appraised at $31.1 million in 2017.

> Rinehart would discount the ranch by 30% if corner crossing was declared legal, he said in an affidavit. His figure would raise alleged damages to a total of $9.39 million.

So the argument essentially is "this law gives me de facto ownership of 25% more property than I actually own, and these guys trying to cross it somehow sets a precedent to set that land free". IANAL, but on the face of it that makes zero sense because two dudes breaking the law doesn't undo the law.

However, if they're not actually trying to win, this is a pretty solid argument to make if you're trying to persuade a judge to legalize corner crossing.

https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a519...