# Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 8, 1968 · 394 F.2d 342

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8878805

## Case

- **Full name:** Mrs. Patricia B. MILLER, Individually and on Behalf of her minor children, Denise and Daniel Miller v. AMUSEMENT ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Fun Fair Park
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 8, 1968
- **Citations:** 394 F.2d 342; 7 A.L.R. Fed. 399
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Riveswhomdyersimpson
- **Judges:** Clayton, Coleman, Dyer, Gewin, Rives, Simpson, Whom
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8878805

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that amusement park was covered because, among other reasons, parents are “people watchers”, and go to the park to watch their kids “perform” in kiddie rides and ice skating rinks
- holding that an amusement park was a “place of enjoyment, fun and recreation, and thus [was] a place of entertainment”

## Opinion text

RIVES, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges DYER and SIMPSON join
(dissenting):
The judicial function is to determine not what the law should be, but what Congress, after hearings, conflict, compromise and change, finally enacted into law. That decision should be influenced neither by the appealing facts of this particular case nor by other factual situations in which the Congress may have had reason to believe that forced association in participant amusements might arouse antagonism or conflict, for the same statute must apply to the broad spectrum of eases which includes both extremes. The law which Congress intended to enact seems to me to be carefully and correctly - stated in the able *354 opinion of the district court which finds ample support in the legislative history documented in the appendix to this Court’s opinion on original hearing. Being convinced that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8878805. Public record. Not legal advice.