In Re Marriage of Chen and Ulner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• declining to apply punitive damages criteria to claim that $100-per-day penalty for violation of Income Withholding for Support Act was grossly excessive and lacked sufficient due process protections
• rejecting employer’s claim that $36,100 penalty under the Withholding Act, which was adjusted to $90,600 on appeal, was excessive compared to the amount actually owed because “it is the employer that controls the extent of the fine”
• rejecting employer’s claim that $36,100 penalty under the Withholding Act, which was adjusted to $90,600 on appeal, was excessive compared to the amount actually owed because “it is the employer that controls the extent of the fine”
• Second District reversed trial court, found noncompliance warranted penalty where employer disregarded notice to withhold for 5½ months
• Second District reversed trial court, found noncompliance warranted penalty where employer disregarded notice to withhold for 5 1/2 months
• \the fact that the penalty assessment [under section 35] may result in a windfall to [the obligee] is irrelevant because the penalty is not related solely to the hardship she suffered\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).