Legal Opinion
Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC
California Supreme Court
Decided December 19, 2013No. S203124PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LIU, J.
We granted a request from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, to address the following issue of state law *335pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.548: Does Civil Code section 2527 compel speech in violation of article I, section 2 of the California Constitution?
Civil Code section 2527 requires prescription drug claims processors to compile and summarize information on pharmacy fees and to transmit the information to their clients. Defendants contend that this statute is a content-based speech requirement that cannot satisfy either…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
- Suarez v. Trigg Laboratories, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- People v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.