U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1987

General Motors Corp. v. California State Board of Equalization

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 14, 1987 · Alarcon, Kennedy, Skopil

824 F.2d 816 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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 ami-cus curiae.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Taylor v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of New York (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1988)
General Motors Corporation v. California State Board Of Equalization (9th Cir. 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

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 sub*817stantive 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.

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).

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.