The FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
John GARAMENDI, as Insurance Commissioner, etc., Defendant and Respondent;
State of California, Defendant and Appellant;
Mercury Insurance Group et al., Interveners and Appellants;
Sam Donabedian, Intervener and Respondent.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
September 27, 2005.
September 27, 2005.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Bill Locker, Attorney General, W. Dean Freeman, Mark P. Richelson, and Stephen Lew, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant.
Douglas L. Hallett, Joseph B. Miller, Marc J. Levine, Orange; and Victor Poltrock, Los Angeles, for Intervener and Appellant Mercury Insurance Group.
Barger & Wolen, Kent R. Keller, Larry M. Golub, Allison C. Gordon and Michael A.S. Newman, Los Angeles, for Intervener and Appellant Association of California Insurance Companies.
Harvey Rosenfield, Santa Monica, and Pamela M. Pressley, for Plaintiff and Respondent Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.
Mark Savage, San Francisco, and Norma Garcia, Costa Mesa, for Plaintiffs and Respondents Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, and National Council of La Raza.
Richard A. Marcantonio, San Rafael, and Michelle N. Rodriguez, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Strumwasser & Woocher, Michael J. Strumwasser, Fredric D. Woocher, Becky L. Monroe; Gary M. Cohen, San Francisco, and Bryant Henley, for Defendant and Respondent.
Gosharian & Marshall, Mark Goshgarian, Calabasas; Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye, Drew E. Pomerance and Vincent S. Gannuscio, Los Angeles, for Intervener and Respondent.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight.
FLIER, J.
In this case, we are asked to determine the validity of Senate Bill No. 841 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) (Sen. Bill 841), a legislative amendment to Proposition 103, the "Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act" the voters passed on November 8, 1988. (Ins.Code, § 1861.01 et seq.; Stats.1988, p. A-276 et seq.) The trial court ruled Sen. Bill 841 invalid because it does not further the purposes of Proposition...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
