Kathleen Hardy Legal Aid Society
We look at a summary decision de novo and look at the case from the perspective that is most favourable to the party that does not move. See Euromotion, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 136 F.3d 866, 869 (1st Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate if the minutes show that there is no real question of fact and that the applicant is entitled to a judgment as of right. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (c). The facts here are largely undisputed, so we focus primarily on the legal issue of the enforceability of New Hampshire`s recreational use laws.
A seasoned legal writer, Kate is also a member of the editorial team in Shook`s Legal Group and regularly contributes to client alerts on the firm`s privacy and data security. Kate regularly travels abroad to meet with clients who appreciate Kate`s attention to detail, creative problem solving and commitment to excellence. Prior to joining Shook, Kate worked for the Honorable John E. Steele in the Fort Myers Division of the Middle District of Florida, one of the most active federal districts in the country. Kate managed much of the court`s civil case. In addition to assisting Justice Steele in drafting orders to resolve contentious motions, Kate has conducted extensive legal research on complex issues – sometimes first impression issues – ranging from Spokeo`s reputation and the enforceability of arbitration agreements, alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the advocacy standard for positive defense and patent infringement. Prior to articling, she worked as a commercial litigation partner for a large law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In this role, she handled a variety of commercial disputes, including fraudulent transfers, unfair competition, trade secrets, product labeling alerts, product recalls, breach of contract and insurance disputes. Passionate about foreign languages, Kate is fluent in Spanish after completing a legal internship at the Center for Human Rights and the Environment (CEDHA) in Cordoba, Argentina, during her law studies.
She worked as an English teacher at IES Gustavo Adolfo Bécquer High School in Seville, Spain, before beginning law school. Kate also speaks French and obtained a B2 diploma in French from the Ministry of French Education in June 2018 and is learning Brazilian Portuguese herself, which allows her to better advise clients on Brazil`s new data protection law, the LGPD. Kate uses her language skills and commitment to public service as a member of the State Department`s Hague Convention Lawyers Network, which provides low-cost, pro bono legal representation in international parental child abduction cases. While in law school, Justice Hardy articled for the Honorable Gustave Diamond of the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Honorable Timothy K. Lewis of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. After graduating from law school, Justice Hardy began his legal career at Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, LLP before joining Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. as a lawyer, then as a director. , where he served as Deputy Group Leader of the Labour and Employment Law Practice Group. In 2010, Justice Hardy joined the Pittsburgh office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., where he served as managing shareholder of the Pittsburgh office and then as a member of the board of directors of the entire firm. While in private practice, Justice Hardy was recognized as “America`s Best Lawyer” and Pennsylvania as a “Super Lawyer.” The New Hampshire Supreme Court did not consider the contours of the term “indictment” as used in section 508.14; It is therefore necessary to guess its probable construction. See Stratford Sch.
Dist., S.A.U. #58 v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 162 F.3d 718, 720 (1st Cir. 1998) (a diverse federal court must predict how the state court would resolve a new legal issue by considering similar decisions in other jurisdictions). We believe that the District Court was correct in concluding that the New Hampshire court would likely be of the majority view that the term “fee” means an actual entrance fee paid for permission to enter the land for recreational purposes. See Howard v. United States, 181 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir.1999) (payment of a fee to a private instructor for sailing lessons in a restricted military port is not a government fee); Wilson v. United States, 989 F.2d 953 (8th Cir.1993) (charge for use of camping facilities, no charge for use of surrounding land); Flohr v. Penn. Power & Light Co., 800 F.Supp.
1252 (E.D.Pa.1992) (no charge for access to recreational activities where only fees have been paid for the rental of a campsite); Livingston v. Penn. Power & Light Co., 609 F.Supp. 643, 648 (E.D.Pa.1985) (easement and charges for access to a lake “cannot logically be considered `consideration`” and are therefore not rights); Majeske v. Jekyll Island State Park Auth., 209 Ga.App. 118, 433 S.E.2d 304 (Ga.App.1993) (parking fees are not charges if charged per car and not per occupant and if any other access to the park was free of charge); City of Louisville v. Silcox, 977 S.W.2d 254 (Ky.Ct.App.1998) (idem).1 The UK High Court Imforms GDPR Risk Insight For US Companies, Law360, 5 February 2021. Our interpretation of the term “fresh” supports sound public policy. If we were to interpret the gondola charge as a charge, this would result in a contradictory application of § 508:14.
According to the complainant`s reasoning, Loon would not be immune in her case, but would be exempt from liability for the same accident if the person had climbed the mountain. Since the violation occurred in the course of an activity for which no charges were laid, Article 508:14 is applicable and the District Court duly rendered summary judgment for Loon Mountain.