Supreme Court of Rhode Island· 6/6/2006

Lacey v. Reitsma

Citations

899 A.2d 455
2006 R.I. LEXIS 94
2006 WL 1529032

How courts have described this case

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

describing the language of the RUS as \unambiguous\ and noting the \equally unambiguous nature of the relevant precedent\
describing the language of the RUS as “unambiguous” and noting the “equally unambiguous nature of the relevant precedent”
applying the recreational use statute, but noting the Court’s concerns and affording the Legislature an opportunity to revisit the statute: “Perhaps the time has come for the General Assembly to revisit the provisions of the Recreational Use Statute[.]”
“[W]e find it troubling (to say the least) to be confronted with a legal regime whereby the users of state and municipal recreational sites must be classified for tort law purposes ‘as though they were trespassers.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Williams, Goldberg, Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.