Legal Opinion
Schwartz v. Poizner
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 28, 2010No. A126217PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POLLAK, J.
In October 2005, following an extensive investigation, the Commissioner of California’s Department of Insurance (the Commissioner) entered into a settlement agreement with a number of related insurance companies (the insurers) resolving allegations that the insurers’ claims-handling procedures violated the Insurance Code.1 In the present action, *595plaintiff Rick L. Schwartz alleges numerous causes of action against the insurers who are parties to the settlement agreement, and also petitions for a writ of mandate directed at the Commissioner. Plaintiff purports to represent…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Heckler v. ChaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Mahdavi v. Fair Employment Practice Com.California Court of Appeal · 1977
- Carrancho v. California Air Resources BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- People v. KarrikerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of IrvineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Ellena v. Department of InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Two Jinn, Inc. v. Government Payment Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Freeny v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Palma v. Prudential InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2011
- Aurora S.A. v. PoiznerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.