Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1987-08-14
Citations: 824 F.2d 816
Docket Number: No. 85-5618
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before KENNEDY, SKOPIL, and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 824
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
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 ami-cus curiae.
Before KENNEDY, SKOPIL, and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.
Substituted for Kenneth Cory, pursuant to Fed. R.App.P. 43(c)(1).

Opinion:
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 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.