Legal Opinion
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. State
Washington Supreme Court
Decided March 4, 1931No. 22952. Department TwoPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBeals, J.
Plaintiff is an insurance company, or-
ganized under the laws of the state of California, and regularly licensed to write insurance in the state of Washington.
This action requires a construction of the so-called insurance retaliatory statute, Rem. Comp. Stat., § 7092, which reads as follows:
“If, by the laws of any other state, any taxes, fines, penalties, licenses, fees, deposits, or other obligations or prohibitions, in the aggregate, additional to or in excess of those imposed by the laws of this state, upon foreign insurance companies and their agents and solicitors, are imposed on…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bankers Life Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Life Casualty Ins. Co. v. Coleman, AuditorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
3Cited by11 opinions
- Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Occidental Life Insurance v. HolmesMontana Supreme Court · 1938
- Employers' Fire Insurance v. Director, Division of TaxationNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
- Republic Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. of California v. LoweIllinois Supreme Court · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.