Martin v. Sun Pipe Line Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “land itself” is determinative as to whether woodlands are “unenclosed,” and that the woodlands at issue were “unenclosed,” in part, because they “were not enclosed by a fence or any other artificial barrier.”
• holding that the “land itself” is determinative as to whether woodlands are “unenclosed,” and that the woodlands at issue were “unenclosed,” in part, because they “were not enclosed by a fence or any other artificial barrier.”
• holding that the “land itself” is determinative as to whether woodlands are “unenclosed,” and that the woodlands at issue were “unenclosed,” in part, because they “were not enclosed by a fence or any other artificial barrier.”
• stating that the woodlands at issue were unenclosed because, “the premises were in fact heavily forested, that appellants intended to preserve the natural setting of the premises, and that the premises were not enclosed by a fence or any other artificial barrier.”
• stating that the woodlands at issue were unenclosed because, “the premises were in fact heavily forested, that appellants intended to preserve the natural setting of the premises, and that the premises were not enclosed by a fence or any other artificial barrier.”
• stating that the woodlands at issue were unenclosed because, “the premises were in fact heavily forested, that appellants intended to preserve the natural setting of the premises, and that the premises were not enclosed by a fence or any other artificial barrier.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).