Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Decisions in Criminal, Employment, Family Law Matters, Plus Public Contract

By FindLaw Staff on May 19, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In In re the Marriage of Schopfer, No. C060549, the Third District faced a challenge to the trial court's denial of the father's motion to reduce to zero his child support obligation of his daughter, whom he shared legal and physical custody of with her stepfather since the death of his ex-wife.  In affirming the denial, the court held that the father was properly ordered to compensate the stepfather for his daughter's support as a custodial parent and that the trial court did not err in requiring father to pay child support past the daughter's 18th birthday.  Furthermore, under the circumstnaces of the case, the court held that the trial court did not err in requiring the father to pay support. 

Camp v. State of California, No. B209176, concerned a plaintiff's suit against the State of California and a police officer who was present at the scene of the automobile accident involving plaintiff and her friends, under the theory that her paraplegia was caused not by her friend's driving under the influence of alcohol, but by the officer's negligence.  In reversing the jury verdict awarding $2,690,608 in damages to plaintiff and ordering judgment in favor of the defendants, the court held that because there was no misfeasance by the officer, he owed no duty to plaintiff. 

In People v. Cropsey, No. C061053, the Third District faced a challenge to the trial court's order "reimposing" a $200 restitution fine and a $200 probation revocation restitution fine and an order adding a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, for defendant's violations of probation following her conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and driving with 0.08 percent or more of alcohol.  Here, because defendant has not identified legal error, judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  However, the trial court's words, "reimpose the restitution amounts," are inconsistent with the principles upon which Chamber was decided, and here, the survival of the $200 restitution fine and $200 probation revocation fine made it unnecessary to "reimpose" those still extant "restitution amounts." 

In Amerigas Propane, LP v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., No. E048536, the Fourth District faced a challenge to the trial court's grant of Landstar's motion for summary judgment on Amerigas's FACC, arising from an underlying action brought by plaintiffs for personal injury and loss of consortium damages against Amerigas and other defendants for suffering serious injuries while offloading gas tanks.  In reversing the trial court's summary judgment, the court held that a triable issue existed as to whether the plaintiff was Landstar's employee under state law.  Furthermore,  Amerigas had a viable claim based on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), which Landstar did not negate. 

Cypress Sec., LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A122534, concerned a plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate seeking to set aside a public contract awarded to a competitor-provider of security services for the San Francisco Department of Human Services (DHS).  In affirming the trial court denial of the petition, the court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion or other error. 

Related Resources:


You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard