Legal Opinion · Dissent

Caminetti v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1943No. L. A. 17678Published

1Dissent

PETERS, J. pro tem.

I dissent.

Two basic questions are presented on these appeals: (1) Is the voting trust agreement so inconsistent with the rehabilitation agreement that it impairs the obligation of contracts ? (2) Can such a voting trust agreement be created under section 1037(e) of the Insurance Code without court approval? On the first issue the majority opinion holds that the two agreements are not inconsistent, that there is no impairment of the obligation of contracts, and that even if there is such impairment it is justified under the police power. On the second issue it holds that,…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. WoodwardSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  3. Stephenson v. BinfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  4. McCullough v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  5. Coombes v. GetzSupreme Court of the United States · 1932

29 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