§Why CasetextPricing

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANIES v. JONES (To be called and continued to the November 2016 calendar.)

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

37 Cited authorities

  1. Securities Comm'n v. Chenery Corp.

    332 U.S. 194 (1947)   Cited 4,140 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that reviewing court may consider only grounds invoked by agency

  2. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

    394 U.S. 759 (1969)   Cited 799 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid a legislative rule developed in agency adjudication

  3. United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe

    508 U.S. 491 (1993)   Cited 339 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the McCarran-Ferguson Act precluded the United States from obtaining priority over policyholders or administrative expenses in insurance liquidation

  4. Kasky v. Nike

    27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 665 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. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 640 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  6. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com

    43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 888 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.”

  7. Mejia v. Reed

    31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 310 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 292 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 239 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a broad construction of the term "discharge" in § 201 made sense "in light of the important public policy at stake"

  10. Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC

    61 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 172 times
    Harmonizing statutes

  11. Section 1011 - Declaration of policy

    15 U.S.C. § 1011   Cited 1,148 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Responding to South-Eastern Underwriters by codifying that the “business of insurance” is exempt from most Congressional action

  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 1,019 times   29 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 778 times   44 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 15 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   Cited 1 times

    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