Lawrence T. Palmer v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiffs argument that “he was engaged in the nonre-creational activity of supervising, his grandchildren” while they were swimming and that the recreational statute did not apply because he “was not permitted to use the swimming pool”
• Hawaii’s recreational use statute barred claim that government assumed duty of reasonable care at swimming pool
• \The land does not have to be open to every person in the general public for the statute to apply.\
• “If the legislature wished to deprive urban property holders of qualified immu- nity, it could have easily done so. It is not our role as a court to rewrite the plain language of a state statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).