§Why CasetextPricing

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

Appellant’s Petition for Review

19 Cited authorities

  1. Central Hudson Gas Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm'n

    447 U.S. 557 (1980)   Cited 2,050 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on commercial speech must directly advance a substantial governmental interest

  2. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

    471 U.S. 626 (1985)   Cited 607 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney advertisement promising "if there is no recovery, no legal fees are owed by our clients" was potentially misleading because "members of the public are often unaware of the technical meanings of such terms as 'fees' and 'costs' — terms that, in ordinary usage, might well be virtually interchangeable"

  3. 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”

  4. Gikas v. Zolin

    6 Cal.4th 841 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 258 times
    Holding the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding

  5. Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian

    48 Cal.3d 805 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 249 times
    Holding that a statute that passed the federal test did not violate either the federal or state Constitutions

  6. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garamendi

    32 Cal.4th 1029 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 120 times
    Giving public access to information provided to the Commissioner under Proposition 103 was "wholly consistent with [its] goal of fostering consumer participation"

  7. W. States Petroleum Ass'n v. Bd. of Equalization

    57 Cal.4th 401 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 58 times
    Adopting Maxwell-Jolly 's analysis after summary judgment granted on regulatory validity

  8. 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi

    8 Cal.4th 216 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 97 times
    Denying notice of flyers "purportedly" distributed to voters during Proposition 103 campaign, because party failed to persuade court that contents may be noticed

  9. Ford Dealers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles

    32 Cal.3d 347 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 97 times
    Finding the Department of Motor Vehicles had authority to adopt regulations setting specific limits on advertising and sales by car dealers to “ ‘ “fill up the details” ’ ” of the statutory scheme prohibiting dissemination of false or misleading statements to public, even though Vehicle Code section 11713 was silent as to rulemaking authority

  10. Batt v. City & County of San Francisco

    184 Cal.App.4th 163 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 27 times
    Finding city's tax collector could “ ‘ “ ‘fill up the details' ” ’ ” of the hotel tax by adopting guidelines requiring hotel operators to apply hotel tax to parking charges for hotel guests

  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 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:

  13. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  14. Rule 8.1125 - Requesting depublication of published opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1125   Cited 204 times

    (a) Request (1) Any person may request the Supreme Court to order that an opinion certified for publication not be published. (2) The request must not be made as part of a petition for review, but by a separate letter to the Supreme Court not exceeding 10 pages. (3) The request must concisely state the person's interest and the reason why the opinion should not be published. (4) The request must be delivered to the Supreme Court within 30 days after the decision is final in the Court of Appeal. (5)

  15. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)