5/29/26
Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District
The Rule of In re Marriage of LaShelle and Nicholas Capos is that a judgment awarding child support arrears is not void for lack of due process when the requesting party clearly states the relief sought in supporting documents and the opposing party files a responsive pleading addressing the merits, under circumstances where boxes relating to child support on judicial council forms are not checked but the specific relief is nonetheless plainly articulated in accompanying declarations.
5/29/26
Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three
The Rule of Dummer v. City and County of San Francisco is that a public agency owning a reservoir has discretionary authority to evaluate and determine terms and conditions for a fishing program before submitting a water supply permit application, and is not subject to mandamus for immediate permit application submission, under circumstances where the agency has made the required water purity determination and is actively taking steps to comply with applicable permitting requirements including CEQA review.
6/2/26
Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight
The Rule of Harland v. City of West Hollywood is that a plaintiff cannot cure a premature filing violation of the Government Claims Act by voluntarily dismissing and refiling an identical lawsuit, even when the public entity later denies the claim, under circumstances where the plaintiff filed suit before the required 45-day waiting period elapsed and the original complaint was served before any corrective amended complaint.
6/4/26
Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five
The Rule of Alternative Family Services is that foster family agencies (FFAs) have a duty to protect foster children from sexual abuse by foster parents where the FFA knew or should have known that the foster parent presented a risk of such abuse, under circumstances involving FFA negligence in screening and supervising foster parents who sexually abuse children.
6/4/26
Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three
The Rule of Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc. is that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not require proof of concrete injury for standing in California state courts, and a statutory violation alone is sufficient to confer standing, under circumstances where a federal statute provides statutory damages without requiring actual damages.
6/5/26
Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One
The Rule of Baker v. Bay Area Toll Authority is that issue preclusion bars relitigation of statute of limitations arguments that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior CEQA action, even when those arguments are raised in a subsequent lawsuit based on allegedly new project components, under circumstances where the party failed to appeal the prior adverse ruling and the new allegations do not establish a genuinely different project under CEQA.