37 Cited authorities

  1. Securities Comm'n v. Chenery Corp.

    332 U.S. 194 (1947)   Cited 3,777 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a reviewing court must judge a decision of an administrative agency "solely by the grounds invoked by the agency"
  2. United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe

    508 U.S. 491 (1993)   Cited 321 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the McCarran-Ferguson Act precluded the United States from obtaining priority over policyholders or administrative expenses in insurance liquidation
  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

    394 U.S. 759 (1969)   Cited 674 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication
  4. Kasky v. Nike

    27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 587 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements by the defendant about the working conditions of its overseas employees were not protected by the First Amendment and could give rise to a claim for fraudulent business practices under the UCL
  5. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com

    43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 864 times
    Holding that the statute did not extend to cover remedies that were “different in kind from the enumerated remedies,” because “ more reasonable reading of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to,’ ... permitting only additional corrective remedies comports with the statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noscitur a sociis.”
  6. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 600 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”
  7. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 281 times
    Holding that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, a transfer can be fraudulent "both as to present and future creditors"
  8. Day v. City of Fontana

    25 Cal.4th 268 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 280 times
    Adopting construction of statute that “promotes, rather than defeats, its general purpose”
  9. Smith v. Superior Court

    39 Cal.4th 77 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 225 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Discussing sections 201 and 203
  10. Bixby v. Pierno

    4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 602 times
    In Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 (Bixby), the leading modern case discussing and explaining the independent judgment test, we quoted with approval Drummey's statement that in applying "`independent judgment,'" a trial court must accord a "`strong presumption of... correctness'" to administrative findings, and that the "burden rests" upon the complaining party to show that the administrative "`decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence.'"
  11. Section 1011 - Declaration of policy

    15 U.S.C. § 1011   Cited 1,100 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "this case involves insurance law, an area that Congress has expressly left to the states through the McCarran-Ferguson Act."
  12. Section 1012 - Regulation by State law; Federal law relating specifically to insurance; applicability of certain Federal laws after June 30, 1948

    15 U.S.C. § 1012   Cited 951 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Establishing an exception to the reverse preemption rule where federal law "specifically relates to the business of insurance."
  13. Section 41 - Federal Trade Commission established; membership; vacancies; seal

    15 U.S.C. § 41   Cited 735 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Granting FTC the power to "make rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this [Act]," 15 U.S.C. § 46(g) (West Supp. 1986)
  14. Section 2695.1 - Preamble

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 § 2695.1   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Governing unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance and stating, “All licensees, as defined in these regulations, shall have thorough knowledge of the regulations contained in this subchapter”
  15. Section 2695.183 - Standards for Estimates of Replacement Value

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 § 2695.183   Cited 5 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No licensee shall communicate an estimate of replacement cost to an applicant or insured in connection with an application for or renewal of a homeowners' insurance policy that provides coverage on a replacement cost basis, unless the requirements and standards set forth in subdivisions (a) through (e) below are met: (a) The estimate of replacement cost shall include the expenses that would reasonably be incurred to rebuild the insured structure(s) in its entirety, including at least the following:

  16. Section 262.03 - Dealer Added Charges

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13 § 262.03

    A dealer may not identify a separate charge or charges for services performed on vehicles prior to delivery to the extent the dealer is or will be reimbursed for such expenditures by another party. If a dealer does identify a separate charge or charges for delivery and preparation services performed over and above those delivery and preparation obligations specified by the franchiser and for which the dealer is to be reimbursed by the franchiser, then the services performed and the charges therefore