Legal Opinion

King v. Meese

California Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1987No. L.A. 32133PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PANELLI, J.

In this case we are called upon to determine whether, as plaintiffs allege, the 1984 Robbins-McAlister Financial Responsibility Act (Stats. 1984, ch. 1322), when considered in relation to the relevant provisions of the Insurance Code pertaining to automobile insurance, fails to provide drivers with adequate procedural due process of law. For the reasons set forth below we hold that plaintiffs’ concerns are legally without merit, and are more properly addressed to the Legislature than to the courts.

I. Legislative Framework

California first enacted a financial responsibility…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Bell v. BursonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Continental Baking Co. v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Gay Law Students Ass'n v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Cohen v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. Common Cause v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  2. People Ex Rel. Gallo v. AcunaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Butt v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Whyte v. Schlage Lock CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. 20th Century Insurance v. GaramendiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994

55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API