Jones v. Goods

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, for purposes of stacking waivers, each time new vehicle replaced existing vehicle, and policy continuously covered same amount of vehicles, no additional waivers were required
• finding “the addition of collision coverage to be irrelevant to the issue of stacking under section 1738”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).