Eshelman’s claims of lost property value caused by the judgment are misguided, Skavdahl wrote. Such a claim “is based on a fictitious right the Plaintiff never actually held under law,” the judge wrote.
There are a few renters of public land in ND that should take note of this.
I'm not sure that's the message the judge intended. My interpretation is that the judge said, and I'll paraphrase here..."the jackwad landowner asked for a stay of the judges decision to allow corner crossing because he fears us public land hunters. Don't go out and give jackwad proof that he has reason to fear public land hunters or he'll have a better argument for asking the judge to issue a stay".