Landowner couldn't reach his 640-acre property by road; Wyoming Supreme Court approves private route with $61,200 compensation

Market Mastery

Webinar by Vishal Malkan

Find the weak links

in your portfolio by Vishal Malkan

The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a landowner seeking vehicle access to an isolated 640-acre property, allowing a private road to be built across a neighbouring ranch while upholding a compensation payment of $61,200. In its September 23, 2026, decision, the court settled a dispute between Wagonhound Land & Livestock Company and Little Medicine Creek Ranch over whether an alternative route across public land provided legally valid access to the property.

The ruling in Wagonhound Land & Livestock Company, LLC v. Little Medicine Creek Ranch, Inc., published on Justia, upheld the creation of the private road but overturned two restrictions imposed by the lower court. The decision clarified that the existence of a rough track across public land does not necessarily give a landowner legally enforceable access to a public road.

Wyoming private road dispute centres on 640-acre property

The case involved Parcel 1, an approximately 640-acre tract in a remote and rugged area of northern Albany County, Wyoming. Wagonhound owned the property, which was almost entirely surrounded by land belonging to Little Medicine Creek Ranch, previously known as Burnett Ranch.

On April 21, 2023, Wagonhound approached the neighbouring ranch with a proposal to purchase legally enforceable access to its isolated property. The company suggested a 30-foot-wide right-of-way following existing ranch roads and expressed its willingness to negotiate reasonable compensation.

However, the discussions failed to produce an agreement. Wagonhound subsequently petitioned the court under Wyoming's private road statute, seeking permission to establish a road across the neighbouring property.

Little Medicine Creek Ranch opposed the application, arguing that the company already had an alternative outlet through adjoining Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and did not need a private road across its property.

Why the court rejected alternative access routes

A central question in the dispute was whether Wagonhound could reach a public road through an existing two-track route crossing BLM land. The ranch argued that this track provided a sufficient alternative to the proposed private road.

However, the Wyoming Supreme Court found that the route did not establish legally enforceable vehicle access. Although it crossed public land, it eventually passed through state trust land and required travelling approximately 1,700 feet across the neighbouring ranch's private property.

The court also found no evidence that the general public had used the route. Access was effectively controlled by the surrounding private land, meaning Wagonhound could not rely on the track as a legally guaranteed connection to a public road.

The ranch also suggested an alternative known as the Parsons Creek Route. This proposal involved obtaining permission to construct a bypass across public land. However, the road did not physically exist. BLM employees questioned whether the proposed route was accessible, while witnesses described sections of it as little more than a trail.

After examining both possibilities, the Supreme Court agreed that neither provided legally enforceable vehicle access to a public road. It therefore upheld the finding that Wagonhound had demonstrated the necessity of establishing a private road across the neighbouring ranch.

Wyoming Supreme Court upholds $61,200 compensation

The district court appointed three independent viewers and appraisers to inspect the possible routes and evaluate their impact on Little Medicine Creek Ranch. They recommended Wagonhound's proposed alignment, describing it as shorter, more direct and more practical than the alternative.

The alternative route would have required construction across a rocky ridge and could have created difficulties for winter travel.

The appointed viewers estimated that the proposed road would affect 680 acres of the neighbouring ranch. Based on comparable property sales and an earlier appraisal report, they assessed the reduction in property value at $90 per acre.

This produced a total compensation figure of $61,200, which the district court approved.

Little Medicine Creek Ranch challenged the assessment, arguing that it failed to consider wider operational and financial consequences. These included potential livestock health problems caused by dust, additional staffing requirements and reduced hunting opportunities on the property.

However, the Supreme Court refused to overturn the compensation award. It explained that Wyoming's private road statute requires compensation to be calculated through a before-and-after assessment of the affected property's value. The law does not provide compensation for indirect future business losses.

The court also observed that the ranch had not submitted evidence challenging the viewers' calculation of the affected acreage or their assessment of the $90-per-acre reduction.

Court overturns two restrictions on private road

Although the Supreme Court upheld the road's creation and the compensation amount, it found that two conditions imposed by the district court lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

The first condition required Wagonhound to pay for any damage to the road, regardless of who caused it. This meant the company could potentially be held responsible for damage caused by the neighbouring ranch, its vehicles or its guests.

The Supreme Court overturned this requirement, finding insufficient evidence to justify such broad liability. Wagonhound remained responsible for maintaining the road for its own use, but could not automatically be held accountable for damage caused by others.

The second condition prohibited vehicles with more than four axles, including semi-trailers, from using the road. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that heavier vehicles would cause unreasonable noise, lighting problems or other disturbances.

However, it retained the requirement for Wagonhound to apply water regularly to control dust. This condition was supported by evidence concerning the potential impact of dust on livestock.

The court also rejected Little Medicine Creek Ranch's request to limit the road exclusively to agricultural activities, finding that the evidence did not justify such a restriction.

What the Wyoming ruling means for landowners

In its September 23, 2026, decision, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the findings concerning necessity, good faith, route selection and compensation while reversing parts of two restrictions governing the road.

The ruling allows Wagonhound to secure legally enforceable vehicle access to its 640-acre property while requiring it to pay Little Medicine Creek Ranch $61,200.

Both parties received a partial victory. Wagonhound secured the access route it had sought, while the neighbouring ranch retained its compensation and dust-control protections.

The decision also highlights an important distinction in private road disputes: a rough track across public land is not necessarily a legally usable route. Where no enforceable connection to a public road exists, a landowner may establish the necessity for a private road through neighbouring property, subject to the applicable legal requirements and compensation provisions.