Furman v. Call

How courts have described this case

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

• holding a “No Soliciting” sign served only “to prohibit soliciting, not the entry of motor vehicles operated by members of the public”
• holding that where the evidence was undisputed that the roads around and in a condominium complex were open to the public twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and the public had never been denied access by guards or gates, the area was a \highway\
• holding that where the evidence was undisputed that the roads around and in a condominium complex were open to the public twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and the public had never been denied access by guards or gates, the area was a “highway”
• noting that signs stating “Private Property: No Soliciting” on the roadway in question were intended “to prohibit soliciting, not the entry of motor vehicles operated by members of the public.”
• holding that where the evidence was undisputed that the roads around and in a condominium complex were open to the public twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and the public had never been denied access by guards or gates, the area was a “highway”
• holding that where the evidence was undisputed that the roads around and in a condominium complex were open to the public twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and the public had never been denied access by guards or gates, the area was a \highway\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).