Darling & Co. v. Petri

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plain language of exclusion \is not ambiguous” and determining that \rational minds would agree that [the driver], an underage, unlicensed, inexperienced driver, was not ‘entitled’ to drive the automobile”
• “Without a driver[’]s license [defendant] could not reasonably believe that she had met all of the requirements necessary to entitle her to drive [the automobile]”
• “Without a driver!’]s license [defendant] could not reasonably believe that she had met all of the requirements necessary to entitle her to drive [the automobile]”
• \Without a drivers license [defendant] could not reasonably believe that she had met all of the requirements necessary to entitle her to drive [the automobile]\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).