Opinion ID: 2795328
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: If employees can be considered to be

Text: “owners” under the Public Use of Lands Act, does the Act, as applied to them[,] JOHNSON V. GIBSON 13 violate the Remedy Clause of the Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 10? The parties argued that “[t]his case raises important questions of Oregon statutory and constitutional law that are unresolved by previous decisions of the Supreme Court or intermediate appellate courts of Oregon” and “determinative of the case before this Court.” They asserted that “[t]his case reduces to the issues left unresolved in Schlesinger, namely whether the Oregon Court of Appeals was correct in its holdings in Brewer, that the Recreational Use of Lands Statute immunizes those who maintain the land on behalf of the owner, and that the Oregon Constitution permits it to do so.”