exchange rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

exchange rule in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Latino Issues Forum v. United States Environmental Protection Agencygreen
ca9 · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014Some people will be humiliated. “[Times Attorney]: Some people will be humiliated — •” 16 Both federal and California state courts have explained the essence of this rule by citing singer-songwriter Bob Dylan: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” (Bob Dylan, “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” Columbia Records, 1965; see, e.g., Latino Issues Forum v. U.S. E.P.A. (9th Cir. 2009) 558 F.3d 936, 949 ; Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 685 , 884 P.2d 142 ].) 17 One might also reasonably infer that if the scores are

11
Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Centergreen
cal · 1994 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Some people will be humiliated. “[Times Attorney]: Some people will be humiliated — •” 16 Both federal and California state courts have explained the essence of this rule by citing singer-songwriter Bob Dylan: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” (Bob Dylan, “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” Columbia Records, 1965; see, e.g., Latino Issues Forum v. U.S. E.P.A. (9th Cir. 2009) 558 F.3d 936, 949 ; Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 685 , 884 P.2d 142 ].) 17 One might also reasonably infer that if the scores are

2014Some people will be humiliated. “[Times Attorney]: Some people will be humiliated — •” 16 Both federal and California state courts have explained the essence of this rule by citing singer-songwriter Bob Dylan: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” (Bob Dylan, “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” Columbia Records, 1965; see, e.g., Latino Issues Forum v. U.S. E.P.A. (9th Cir. 2009) 558 F.3d 936, 949 ; Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 685 , 884 P.2d 142 ].) 17 One might also reasonably infer that if the scores are

11
Lewsadder v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc.green
calctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976(Id, at p. 713; see fn. 5, supra.) Lewsadder v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc., 36 Cal.App.3d 255, 257 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 405 ], did involve an agreement to arbitrate under NYSE rules, but there it was a registered representative of the broker who resisted arbitration in the face of an Exchange rule—a condition of his employment—that controversies between such representatives and member brokers be arbitrated in accordance with Exchange procedures.

1976(Id, at p. 713; see fn. 5, supra.) Lewsadder v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc., 36 Cal.App.3d 255, 257 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 405 ], did involve an agreement to arbitrate under NYSE rules, but there it was a registered representative of the broker who resisted arbitration in the face of an Exchange rule—a condition of his employment—that controversies between such representatives and member brokers be arbitrated in accordance with Exchange procedures.

11
Frame v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.green
calctapp · 1971 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
2 sentences

1976(See also Frame v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 20 Cal.App.3d 668, 671-672 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 811 ].) In any event, again there was no issue concerning the unfairness of particular Exchange rules concerning arbitration.

1976(See also Frame v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 20 Cal.App.3d 668, 671-672 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 811 ].) In any event, again there was no issue concerning the unfairness of particular Exchange rules concerning arbitration.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Woodruff green
cal · 2018
1 sentence

2024(People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th 697, 770 .) 23 Defendant’s citation of People v. Tatum (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1125 is inapposite.

12024–2024
People v. Morgain green
calctapp · 2009
1 sentence

2024As the trial court observed, “[i]t is not clear from the record whether McCray ever actually gave the taped statement referenced in Exhibit 42.” 15 The trial court observed that “despite what appears to be the contemplation of a possible grant of immunity by the prosecution, the fact that McCray invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and did not testify against [Hill] strongly suggests that such an agreement was never consummated.” The court was referring to exhibit 44 to the petition, a page of district attorney notes that includes a January 14, 1986 entry saying “Also, 26 statute, section 132

12024–2024
People v. Ervin green
cal · 2000
1 sentence

2024As the trial court observed, “[i]t is not clear from the record whether McCray ever actually gave the taped statement referenced in Exhibit 42.” 15 The trial court observed that “despite what appears to be the contemplation of a possible grant of immunity by the prosecution, the fact that McCray invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and did not testify against [Hill] strongly suggests that such an agreement was never consummated.” The court was referring to exhibit 44 to the petition, a page of district attorney notes that includes a January 14, 1986 entry saying “Also, 26 statute, section 132

12024–2024
People v. Tatum CA2/1 green
calctapp · 2016
1 sentence

2024(People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th 697, 770 .) 23 Defendant’s citation of People v. Tatum (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1125 is inapposite.

12024–2024
People v. Valdez green
cal · 2004
1 sentence

2014People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 125 ),” insert a new final paragraph of Subsection C, as follows: Wentworth argues the prosecutor committed misconduct on redirect examination by stating to the parole officer that when “you say he had [no parole violations] in nine months,” “[y]ou’re obviously not referring to his conduct on the 27[th]; correct?” The parole agent answered, “Correct.” There was no prosecutorial error in this exchange because defense counsel opened the door on cross-examination to this line of inquiry by eliciting that Wentworth had been law- abiding and free of parole vio

12014–2014
Mercury Casualty Co. v. State Board of Equalization green
calctapp · 1983
2 sentences

2007Co. v. State Board of Equal., supra, 169 Cal.App.2d at pp. 173-174.) Allstate is inapposite to this case because here the installment charges in question are not based on the additional costs incurred by Exchange in offering an installment payment program, but are based solely on the time value of money for use of the option of making payments of premium in installments (i.e., interest on the amount of the unpaid premium balance).* 11 In Williams’s statement of disputed material facts in opposition to Exchange’s motion for summary judgment, she admits it is “[u]ndisputed” that “Exchange’s admi

2007Co. v. State Board of Equal., supra, 169 Cal.App.2d at pp. 173-174.) Allstate is inapposite to this case because here the installment charges in question are not based on the additional costs incurred by Exchange in offering an installment payment program, but are based solely on the time value of money for use of the option of making payments of premium in installments (i.e., interest on the amount of the unpaid premium balance).* 11 In Williams’s statement of disputed material facts in opposition to Exchange’s motion for summary judgment, she admits it is “[u]ndisputed” that “Exchange’s admi

12007–2007
Holzinger v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America green
wis · 1936
2 sentences

1942Co. of America, 222 Wis. 456 [ 269 N.W. 306 ].) If it be assumed, as is expressed in the majority opinion, that the requirement that the exchange policy be "for the same amount" is susceptible of the construction that disability benefits could not be added because the amount of the policy would then be different, it certainly cannot be said that such is the only reasonable construction.

1942Co. of America, 222 Wis. 456 [ 269 N.W. 306 ].) If it be assumed, as is expressed in the majority opinion, that the requirement that the exchange policy be "for the same amount" is susceptible of the construction that disability benefits could not be added because the amount of the policy would then be different, it certainly cannot be said that such is the only reasonable construction.

11942–1942

Where else courts name it

NY 9 (1918–2008) CA 7 (1942–2024) TX 6 (1920–2011) IL 3 (1980–2024) MI 3 (1978–2022) WA 2 (1980–2026) OH 2 (2001–2006) MO 2 (1986–2013)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check