Gem State Mutual Life Ass'n v. O'Connell
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Justice.
Respondent is a mutual benefit life association organized and existing pursuant to Idaho Code Title 41, Chapter 31. It cannot issue a policy unless the form be first approved by appellant, hereinafter called the Commissioner.
*537Respondent in this proceeding made application for the Commissioner’s approval of a proposed form of policy, hereinafter referred to as the proposed policy, differing mainly from respondent’s form of approved “standard” policy, issued upon the assessment plan, in that the phrase, “$500.00 Funeral Benefit” appears on the first page of the proposed policy,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Carpenter v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Mutual Life Insurance v. PhinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- O'Connor v. City of MoscowIdaho Supreme Court · 1949
- Continental Oil Co. v. City of Twin FallsIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
- Rowe v. City of PocatelloIdaho Supreme Court · 1950
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.