Cedeno v. Lockwood, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding property owner who was in the business of entertainment and provided property to public to further that business interest was not entitled to the protection of the RPA
• rejecting urban-rural distinction, focusing instead upon “the purpose for which the public is permitted on the property”
• no immunity because the key public activity was purchasing food, merchandise, and services
• no immunity because the key public activity was purchasing food, merchandise, and services
• purpose for which public is allowed on property is determinative

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).