Shapiro rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Shapiro rule in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2014 0 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in California.

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center green
calctapp · 1989
2 sentences

2001He cites Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1379 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 412 , for the proposition that the Shapiro rule does not apply to subsequent oral modifications of written contracts.

2001He cites Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1379 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 412 , for the proposition that the Shapiro rule does not apply to subsequent oral modifications of written contracts.

22001–2001
Cohen v. Stevanovich green
nysd · 2010
1 sentence

2014(See GFL, supra, 272 F.3d at pp. 207– 208.) Indeed, it was essential to the reset trades that “a manipulator act[] as both the buyer and seller in order to give the false appearance of actual trades without assuming any actual risk.” (Cohen, supra, 722 F.Supp.2d at p. 424 .) 30 Whether a fail to deliver actually “creates” a phantom share or merely gives the appearance of extra supply—an issue Merrill raises—is not relevant to Shapiro’s analysis, as the supply and demand model is based on appearances.

12014–2014
Brasier v. Sparks neutral
calctapp · 1993
2 sentences

2013A section 1102.6 Transfer Disclosure Statement is not "part of the purchase contract or a separate contract containing conditions upon which the formation of the primary contract is based." (Brasier v. Sparks (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1756, 1760 .) Appellants assert that the statutory disclosure requirements (§ 1102 et seq.) are a term of the purchase agreement but that does not change the Shapiro analysis.

2013A section 1102.6 Transfer Disclosure Statement is not "part of the purchase contract or a separate contract containing conditions upon which the formation of the primary contract is based." (Brasier v. Sparks (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1756, 1760 .) Appellants assert that the statutory disclosure requirements (§ 1102 et seq.) are a term of the purchase agreement but that does not change the Shapiro analysis.

12013–2013
Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc. green
calctapp · 1981
2 sentences

1984L.Rev. 187; Note, The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: a Common Ground for the Torts of Wrongful Discharge from Employment (1981) 21 Santa Clara L.Rev. 1111; Diamond; The Tort of Bad Faith Breach of Contract: When, If at all, Should it be Extended Beyond Insurance Transactions (1981) 64 Marq.L.Rev. 425.) 8 The Pugh court stated that when “the employee occupies a sensitive managerial or confidential position, the employer must of necessity be allowed substantial scope for the exercise of subjective judgment.” ( 116 Cal.App.3d at p. 330 .) 9 The Pugh court also held that plaintiff’s evid

1984L.Rev. 187; Note, The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: a Common Ground for the Torts of Wrongful Discharge from Employment (1981) 21 Santa Clara L.Rev. 1111; Diamond; The Tort of Bad Faith Breach of Contract: When, If at all, Should it be Extended Beyond Insurance Transactions (1981) 64 Marq.L.Rev. 425.) 8 The Pugh court stated that when “the employee occupies a sensitive managerial or confidential position, the employer must of necessity be allowed substantial scope for the exercise of subjective judgment.” ( 116 Cal.App.3d at p. 330 .) 9 The Pugh court also held that plaintiff’s evid

11984–1984

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Labor Code § 2922 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 5 (1984–2014) MA 2 (1985–2008) MD 2 (1980–2024)

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