Stanley v. American Fire & Cas. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting Tilley analysis that focused on brewing coffee as the activity in question
• “supervising children on a regular basis for compensation is ordinarily a business pursuit”
• “The provision does not lend itself to clarity, resulting in a split of opinion over whether it is ambiguous with the consensus that it is poorly worded.”
• $3.00 per day held to be sufficient compensation for \business pursuits\ exclusion to apply
• \We are in accord with the several authorities that the exclusionary provision [virtually identical to the one here] is poorly worded and could have been written with more specificity. Yet when applied to these facts we do not find it ambiguous.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).