Knack v. Phillips

How courts have described this case

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

• “Addressing the facts at the case at bar, we find the following to be particularly determinative of whether [the] vehicle was or was not available for [the driver’s] regular use.”
• stating, “the words ‘regular use’ suggest a principal use as distinguished from a casual or incidental use, or an uninterrupted normal use for all purposes, without limitation as to use”
• finding vehicle was not available for regular use of the defendant, where the grant of use was for an indefinite period of time to travel to a part-time job during the workweek, contingent upon another’s nonuse, and regarded as 11 temporary and casual
• car driven only on weekdays, when owner was away at naval base

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).