Beck v. Finke

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “[t]here is nothing in the statute (New York’s recreational use statute
• noting that \[t]here is nothing in the statute (New York's recreational use statute) or its history suggesting that the Legislature intended its application should turn on the subjective intent of the injured person when engaging in one of the enumerated activities[]\
• noting that “[t]here is nothing in the statute (New York’s recreational use statute) or its history suggesting that the Legislature intended its application should turn on the subjective intent of the injured person when engaging in one of the enumerated activities[ ]”
• noting the New York recreational use statute “is not limited to claims arising in wilderness, remote or undeveloped areas”
• plurality opinion by Hancock, J., in which Alexander and Titone, JJ., concur

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).