Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

85-5618 (1987)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 85-5618 Visitors: 34
Filed: Aug. 14, 1987
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 824 F.2d 816 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; American National Red Cross; Jasper Ballance; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; William M. Bennet; Conway H. Collis; Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr.; Richard Nevins; Gray Davis * ; and Bruce Bunner, Defendants- Appellants. No. 85-5618. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Aug. 14, 1987. William J. Kilberg, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellees. Patti S. Kitching, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
More

824 F.2d 816

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; American National Red Cross;
Jasper Ballance; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; William M. Bennet;
Conway H. Collis; Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr.;
Richard Nevins; Gray Davis
*; and Bruce
Bunner,
Defendants-
Appellants.

No. 85-5618.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 14, 1987.

William J. Kilberg, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Patti S. Kitching, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants.

Benjamin W. Boley, James R. Bieke, William R. Hanlon, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; David W. Williams, Senior District Judge.

Prior Report: 815 F.2d 1305.

Before KENNEDY, SKOPIL, and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

The decision of the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 1549, 95 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1987), does not alter the opinion's analysis. Pilot Life involves a state law of general application, one that directly conflicts with a substantive provision of ERISA. This case, in contrast, involves a state law directed specifically at the insurance industry, one that does not conflict with any of ERISA's substantive provisions. Accordingly, the analysis of Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 105 S. Ct. 2380, 85 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1985), remains fully applicable.

2

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for en banc hearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).

3

The petition for rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.

*

Substituted for Kenneth Cory, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(1)

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer