Legal Opinion

Miller v. City of Dayton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1989No. 88-136PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.

The primary issue is whether Miller was a “recreational user” at the time of his injury. “Recreational user” is defined in R.C. 1533.18 (B) as “a person to whom permission has been granted, without the payment of a fee or consideration to the owner, lessee, or occupant of premises * * * to enter upon premises to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, swim, or engage in other recreational pursuits.” For the following reasons we find Miller was a recreational user and reverse the court of appeals.

A

In determining whether a person is a recreational user under R.C. 1533.18 (B), the analysis should focus on…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Light v. Ohio UniversityOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Johnson v. Village of New LondonOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Marrek v. Cleveland Metroparks Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Loyer v. BuchholzOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Fryberger v. Lake Cable Recreation Ass'nOhio Supreme Court · 1988

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Scrapchansky v. Town of PlainfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  2. Prince v. City of Apache JunctionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
  3. Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass'nSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Herman v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  5. Hanley v. StateSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2003

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API