Sentences with phrase «use statute»

Essentially, the plaintiff's argument was that the recreational use statute only applied to the activities that were specifically listed in the statutory language.

You can also use the statute of limitations as a bargaining chip for getting a lower settlement.

The plaintiff did not argue that the recreational - use statute did not apply based on the general facts.

Since this was not the case, the recreational use statute protected the government agency in charge of the pond.

While recreational use statutes and government immunity may come into play, this does not necessarily mean your claim will be unsuccessful.

prosecutors in using this statute against Bruno.

The next day that firm filed two lawsuits against Diageo, one in federal court, raising a suite of traditional trademark and unfair business practices claims, but the other in New York State Supreme Court, seeking a permanent injunction under a seldom - used statute available only to charitable organizations, known as Section 135 of the New York General Business Law.

«Prior to this decision, any decent prosecutor could have indicted anyone in the United States for anything using that statute,» Razzano says.

«The government here is trying to use this statute from 1789 in a way it has never been used before.

Rather, the real choice is between regulatory chaos and legislation that fixes the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act so that pro-Kyoto litigation groups can not use those statutes for a purpose that Congress never intended — to dictate climate and energy policy for the nation.

Recreational use statutes confer immunity on a property owner — a private party or a government agency — who opens up their land for the general recreational enjoyment of the public.

Our attorneys regularly lecture and write on these subjects and are actively involved in advising both the state legislature and regulatory agencies on land use statutes and regulatory matters.

The final result of this Congressional action was a fair use statute that vested the trier of fact with broad discretion over the circumstances under which an author's exclusive rights must give way to other societal interests.

For example, «a class might focus on statutory interpretation using the statutes in an assignment to identify ambiguities and possible interpretations that would affect the outcome of the problem.»

Generally speaking, a recreational - use statute provides immunity to landowners who open their land to the public at no cost for recreational purposes.

Marijuana remains classified as an illegal narcotic under federal law, though the Obama administration has said it was giving individual states leeway to carry out their own recreational - use statutes.

They use that statute for flipping sexual assault now.

And why would they have agreed to hold it under an act where the tax required 50 per cent of votes cast plus one to remain in place, as opposed to using another statute, called the Recall and Initiative Act, under which the government may well have prevailed?.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Rhode Island issued an instructive opinion regarding that state's recreational use statute and how the statute may be used by defendants to avoid liability in a premises liability case.

The court explained that it was sympathetic to Roy's situation, but legally the defense was correct in that there was insufficient evidence to overcome the immunity granted by the recreational use statute.

A recreational use statute is common in most states, and it acts to limit the liability of landowners, including the state or federal government, in order to encourage them to keep their land open for recreational enjoyment.

In ruling against the plaintiff, the court cited the state's «recreational use statute.»

The judge hearing the case determined that, under the state's recreational use statute, the general rule is that the government can not be held liable for injuries that occur on its land when the user is engaged in recreational activity.

In Indiana, the recreational use statute is very similar to the one in the case discussed above, and as a general rule it grants immunity to governments in premises liability actions when the injured party was engaging in recreational activity.

These cases tend to be a bit more difficult, since laws like the recreational use statute may come into play.

The court based its decision on the state's «recreational use statute.»

She argued that the Fair was not engaging in «recreational» activity but instead was engaging in «commercial» activity, removing the case from the reach of the recreational use statute.

The Oregon court began by noting that under the state's recreational use statute, a landowner who opens up his land for the recreational use of the general public is not generally liable for injuries sustained by the public.

The case required the court to determine if the state government was entitled to immunity under the state's recreational use statute.

A recent Florida appellate opinion discusses the applicability of a recreational use statute to a rollerblade injury case, finding that the plaintiff was prevented from bringing a lawsuit against the government entity he claimed was responsible for his injuries.

Prior to the beginning of the trial, the parties agreed to the facts, and the Fair asked the court to dismiss the case because it was entitled to immunity from the lawsuit, based on the state's recreational use statute.

Under Florida's recreational use statute, Florida Statute 375.251, some landowners who allow others to use their property for recreational purposes are immune from liability.

Like North Dakota, Indiana also has a recreational use statute that may act to protect the owners of land in certain situations.

So the federal court paused the case and asked the Oregon court for advice on interpreting the Oregon recreational use statute that was at issue in the case.

There is an exception to this general rule, however, and that lies within the Florida recreational use statute, F.S. 375 - 251.

The city asked the court to dismiss the case based on the recreational - use statute.

The plaintiff claimed that the recreational use statute did not apply because the act of using a rope swing was not specifically listed in the recreational use statute as a covered activity.

Well, although there are statutes that allow judges to bypass the status quo of the 50 - 50, many times judges require a conviction of domestic violence to use the statute to make their decisions.