Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 16, 2003No. B168662PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MALLANO, J.

This is an action against a mutual automobile insurance company incorporated and headquartered in Illinois, where the board of directors holds its meetings. A group of policyholders contends that the insurance company’s board of directors did not pay the dividends it promised. The trial court certified the case as a nationwide class action and ruled that California law, not Illinois law, governs the policyholders’ causes of action.

The insurance company has filed a petition for a writ of mandate, challenging the trial court’s ruling that California law applies. We conclude…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Edgar v. Mite Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Nedlloyd Lines B v. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Vantagepoint Venture Partners 1996 v. Examen, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2005
  2. Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
  3. Scheenstra v. California Dairies, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. Vaughn v. LJ International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

24 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