Legal Opinion

Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 10, 1998No. B112528PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSKEY, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff, The Proposition 103 Enforcement Project (the Project) filed a petition for preliminary and permanent injunction and a complaint for declaratory relief (the complaint) against Charles Quackenbush, as the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of California (the Commissioner) and Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company, Zurich Insurance Company, Williamsburg National Insurance Company, and State Farm Group of Insurance Companies (collectively, the Insurers) for a declaration that Insurance Code section 769.2 1 is invalid and to enjoin the Commissioner…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc. v. City of LivermoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Calfarm Insurance v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. DeVita v. County of NapaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Otis v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  5. American Academy of Pediatrics v. LungrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. People v. Superior Court (Pearson)California Supreme Court · 2010
  2. People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. People v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. County of San Diego v. San Diego NORMLCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of AnaheimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

27 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