20th Century Insurance v. Garamendi
California Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceMosk, J.
—I concur, of course, in the opinion that I have prepared for the court. Specifically, I concur in its conclusion that neither Proposition 103’s rate rollback requirement provision nor the rate regulations as to rollbacks are facially confiscatory under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I write separately to address the following question:
Can any individual insurer, through either the operation of Proposition 103’s rate rollback requirement provision or the rate regulations as to rollbacks, suffer confiscation under the takings clause of the Fifth…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Permian Basin Area Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Bowles v. WillinghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Duquesne Light Co. v. BaraschSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Minnesota Ass'n of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Public WelfareCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
- Michael L. Burditt, M.D. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.