State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Quackenbush
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PAKRILLI, J.
This appeal arises from administrative proceedings to determine whether the State Farm insurance companies (collectively, State Farm) will be required to roll back their 1989 premium rates under Proposition 103 (Ins. Code, § 1861.01 et seq.). Insurance Commissioner Charles Quackenbush (Commissioner) rejected a proposed decision by an administrative law judge, who concluded State Farm owed no refund to its policyholders. The Commissioner ordered State Farm to roll back its 1989 rates by 3.7644 percent, and to refund over $200 million.
State Farm challenged the Commissioner’s…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. CompaniesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Calfarm Insurance v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Fukuda v. City of AngelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Culligan Water Conditioning of Bellflower, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Krumme v. Mercury InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Automotive Funding Group, Inc. v. GaramendiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Diablo Valley College Faculty Senate v. Contra Costa Community College DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights v. GaramendiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.