Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Long

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 7, 1998No. COA97-801PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

The only issue before us is whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argue that the summary judgment order was in error because the insurance regulatory charge is a tax and its exclusion from the retaliatory tax computation violates the federal and state constitutions. After careful consideration of the record, briefs and contentions of the parties, we affirm.

Plaintiffs’ first argument is that the regulatory charge is a tax. Plaintiffs make five contentions. First, plaintiffs…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. San Juan Cellular Telephone Company, Etc. v. Public Service Commission of Puerto RicoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
  3. Bidart Brothers, a California Corporation v. The California Apple CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  4. Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Tax Assessor, MaineCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
  5. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. v. Commissioner of InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1981

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Premera Blue Cross v. State, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, Division of InsuranceAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. StateNew Jersey Tax Court · 1998
  3. Heatherly v. StateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  4. Heatherly v. StateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  5. Heatherly v. StateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008

1 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