Strine v. Walton

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that there would be no need for the family purpose doctrine “[i]f an owner of a vehicle were liable simply because they allowed someone to use their car”
• “We cannot conclude that the Trial Court committed error when ruling on an issue if there is nothing in the record establishing that the issue actually was raised below.”
• testimony of co- defendant son that car was being driven without father’s “authority, knowledge, and consent” failed to rebut the prima facie evidence established by statute because son was an “interested witness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).