# General Motors Corp. v. California State Board of Equalization

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 14, 1987 · 824 F.2d 816

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8952829

## Case

- **Full name:** GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION American National Red Cross Jasper Ballance v. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION William M. Bennet Conway H. Collis Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr. Richard Nevins Gray Davis and Bruce Bunner
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 14, 1987
- **Citations:** 824 F.2d 816
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Alarcon, Kennedy, Skopil
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8952829

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- characterizing the preemption issue as a two-part test: whether the law at issue is one of general application or one directed specifically at the insurance industry, and whether the law conflicts or not with any of ERISA’s substantive provisions

## Opinion text

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 *817 stantive 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8952829. Public record. Not legal advice.