[rippercushions]

If corner crossing is not possible, the value of his private property increases by the value of the notionally public land that's effectively exclusively his now. If corner crossing is allowed, then that value is stripped away and he "loses" millions.

Of course, this claim of damages collapses in a puff of logic when you point out that he never should have had exclusive access in the first place. Maybe he can sue the judge next?

[CottonMcKnight]

It's a puff of logic in either circumstance:

If he's wrong, he never had exclusive rights to public land in the first place and it was not his to lose.

If he's right, he obviously did not suffer the loss of the value of that property.

[xref]

I believe corner crossing _was_ illegal until this court case

[gpderetta]

Still, if he had won the case, it would have stayed illegal and he would have had no financial loss.

If he had lost the case, he would have suffered a financial loss, but having lost cannot recover it from the "trespassers".

[az226]

If the fed raises the interest rates, my stocks go down in value. Do I sue the fed for my losses? Ranch owner logic.

[dylan604]

>Maybe he can sue the judge next?

AKA an appeal