Huggins v. Bohman

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”
• noting that while determining issues on their merits is generally favored, the decision whether to set aside a default is within the trial court’s discretion
• “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).