balancing of various factors in California

2026Policy considerations weigh against the imposition of a tort duty on the managing agent of a homeowner’s association Even when “the existence of a duty is not the general rule,” courts may conclude a duty arises from a contract in the absence of privity “based on public policy considerations.” (Lichtman v. Siemens Industry Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 914, 921 .) “The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are [1)] the extent to which the transacti

2025(See Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650 [“The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors”].) 5 4 The compliance manual reads: “When conducting due diligence or opening an account, we will immediately call Federal law enforcement when necessary, and especially in these emergencies: we discover that a legal or beneficial account holder or person with whom the account holder is engaged in a transaction is listed on or located in a country or region listed

2025“Generally, ‘ “an attorney owes a duty of care, and is thus answerable in malpractice, only to the client with whom the attorney stands in privity of contract.” ’ ” (Paul, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1095 .) “However, courts have extended an attorney’s duty of care to nonclients—including will and trust beneficiaries—in limited circumstances.” (Id. at pp. 1095–1096.) “Whether an attorney owes a duty to a nonclient beneficiary ‘is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors.’ ” (Id. at p. 1096.) Courts sometimes enumerate six nonexclusive factors: “[1] the extent to which

2020To be sure, courts have the power to expand the duty owed by lawyers and to thereby expand the universe of plaintiffs who might be able to sue for legal malpractice. “‘The determination whether in a specific case the [lawyer] will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors.’” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 397 .) When it comes to expanding the scope of the duty not to be negligent in practicing law to third parties, the relevant factors are (1) “the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the [third party] p

2000At this point, it suffices to note that Biakanja held that the negligent performance of a contractual obligation, resulting in damage to the property or economic interests of a person not in privity, could support recovery if the defendant was under a duty to protect those interests. ( Biakanja, at pp. 648-650, 320 P.2d 16 .) "The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity," we wrote, "is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors...." ( Id. at p. 650, 320 P.2d 16 .) [8] *726 Applying those factors to the ne

2000At this point, it suffices to note that Biakanja held that the negligent performance of a contractual obligation, resulting in damage to the property or economic interests of a person not in privity, could support recovery if the defendant was under a duty to protect those interests. ( Biakanja, at pp. 648-650, 320 P.2d 16 .) "The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity," we wrote, "is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors...." ( Id. at p. 650, 320 P.2d 16 .) [8] *726 Applying those factors to the ne

2024“The essential characteristic of due process in the statutory dependency scheme is fairness in the procedure employed by the state to adjudicate a parent’s rights.” (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265 .) “Due process guarantees ‘“notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.”’” (In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 601, italics omitted.) “But due process also is a flexible concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the balancing of various factors.” (Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 757 .) Further, the “due proces

2022(Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 753 .) “The state and federal Constitutions guarantee no state shall deprive parents of this interest in their children without due process of law, which includes the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in dependency proceedings. [Citations.]” (David B. v. Superior Court (2006) 28 140 Cal.App.4th 772, 777 (David B.).) In the context of dependency proceedings, however, “due process is not synonymous with full-fledged cross-examination rights. [Citation.] Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of v

2013(J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 803 (J'Aire Corp.).) "The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, and the policy of preve

2013(J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 803 (J'Aire Corp.).) "The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, and the policy of preve

2009(J’Aire, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 806 .) In this case, Mintz alleges Blue Cross had a duty of due care to Mintz “by virtue of the duties that it is called upon to perform under the Plan . . . .” When parties are, as here, not in privity, “ ‘[t]he determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors ....’” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 397 , quoting Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650 [ 320 P.2d 16 ] (Biakanja); see also Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 342 [

2009(J’Aire, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 806 .) In this case, Mintz alleges Blue Cross had a duty of due care to Mintz “by virtue of the duties that it is called upon to perform under the Plan . . . .” When parties are, as here, not in privity, “ ‘[t]he determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors ....’” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 397 , quoting Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650 [ 320 P.2d 16 ] (Biakanja); see also Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 342 [

2014It is well recognized that due process “is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors.” (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 534 ]; see Sheri T. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 334, 341 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 410 ].) Even where due process rights are triggered, it must always be determined “what process is due.” (In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368, 383 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 787 , 795 P.2d 1244 ].) We look to “the private interest that will be affected by the agency’s action, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of th

2014It is well recognized that due process “is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors,” and, more specifically, that “the due process right to present evidence is limited to relevant evidence of significant probative value to the issue before the court.” (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 ; see Sheri T. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 334, 341 .) Even where due process rights are triggered, it must be determined “what process is due.” (In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368, 383 , partially superseded by statute on another

2021(Id. at pp. 649-650.) It stated: “The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are [1] the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, [2] the foreseeability of harm to him, [3] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [4] the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, [5] the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, and [6] the policy of preventing futur

2020To be sure, courts have the power to expand the duty owed by lawyers and to thereby expand the universe of plaintiffs who might be able to sue for legal malpractice. “‘The determination whether in a specific case the [lawyer] will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors.’” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 397 .) When it comes to expanding the scope of the duty not to be negligent in practicing law to third parties, the relevant factors are (1) “the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the [third party] p

1985Dist. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 821-822 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 854 ]; Schauf v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 450, 458 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 518 ]; Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 847 ]; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 493, p. 2756) would be inexplicable. “ ‘The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plain

1985Dist. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 821-822 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 854 ]; Schauf v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 450, 458 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 518 ]; Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 847 ]; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 493, p. 2756) would be inexplicable. “ ‘The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plain

1998The court found such a duty was owed to the purchasers of the homes by application of the test outlined in Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650 [ 320 P.2d 16 , 65 A.L.R.2d 1358 ]: “ ‘The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are [1] the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, [2] the foreseeability of harm to him, [3] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [4] the closeness of the connec

1998The court found such a duty was owed to the purchasers of the homes by application of the test outlined in Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650 , 320 P.2d 16 : "`The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are [1] the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, [2] the foreseeability of harm to him, [3] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [4] the closeness of the connection between the defe

2024“The essential characteristic of due process in the statutory dependency scheme is fairness in the procedure employed by the state to adjudicate a parent’s rights.” (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265 .) “Due process guarantees ‘“notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.”’” (In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 601, italics omitted.) “But due process also is a flexible concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the balancing of various factors.” (Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 757 .) Further, the “due proces

2022(Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 753 .) “The state and federal Constitutions guarantee no state shall deprive parents of this interest in their children without due process of law, which includes the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in dependency proceedings. [Citations.]” (David B. v. Superior Court (2006) 28 140 Cal.App.4th 772, 777 (David B.).) In the context of dependency proceedings, however, “due process is not synonymous with full-fledged cross-examination rights. [Citation.] Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of v

1973The following oft-quoted language from Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647, 650 [ 320 P.2d 16 , 65 A.L.R.2d 1358 ], provides the yardstick for resolving the case at bench: “The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect *544 the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s co

1968“In Merrill v. Buck, supra, 58 Cal.2d 552, 561 , the court stated: ‘Privity of contract is not necessary to establish the existence of a duty to exercise ordinary care not to injure another, hut such duty may arise out of a voluntarily assumed relationship if public policy dictates the existence of such a duty. ’ For the guidelines in determining the public policy as to a given case the court referred to Biakanja v. Irving. 49 Cal.2d 647 [ 320 P.2d 16 , 65 A.L.R.2d 1358 ], In that case (p. 650) the court stated: ‘The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to

2024“The essential characteristic of due process in the statutory dependency scheme is fairness in the procedure employed by the state to adjudicate a parent’s rights.” (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 265 .) “Due process guarantees ‘“notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.”’” (In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 601, italics omitted.) “But due process also is a flexible concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the balancing of various factors.” (Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 757 .) Further, the “due proces

2020But due process also is a flexible concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the balancing of various factors.” (Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751 , 756–757.) “Under section 366.26 . . . a parent may avoid termination of parental rights . . . if the parent has maintained regular contact and visitation with the child, and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. [Citation.] To overcome the statutory preference for adoption, the parent must prove he or she occupies a parental role in the child’s life, resulting in a significant, positive emo

1976“An attorney may be liable for damage caused by his negligence to a person intended to be benefited by his performance irrespective of any lack of privity of contract between the attorney and the party to be benefited. [Citation.] The liability sounds in tort. [Citation.] The determination of whether the duty undertaken by an attorney extends to a third party not in privity ‘involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered in

1976“An attorney may be liable for damage caused by his negligence to a person intended to be benefited by his performance irrespective of any lack of privity of contract between the attorney and the party to be benefited. [Citation.] The liability sounds in tort. [Citation.] The determination of whether the duty undertaken by an attorney extends to a third party not in privity ‘involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered in

2024(Conservatorship of John L. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 131, 150 ; In re Earl L. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1053 .) Here, on January 4, 2022, the probate court denied an application filed by Lydia Vose to remove Cadena as trustee, on grounds the application did not comport with the notice provisions of Probate Code section 17203.

2022(See In re Tamika T. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122 (Tamika T.); Jeanette V., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 816-817; see also In re Earl L. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1053 [juvenile court properly required parent to make offer of proof on claim of sibling relationship exception to adoption].) Additionally, one court has held that the juvenile court, without offending due process, may require a parent seeking a post-permanency contested hearing to submit an offer of proof on whether the child placed in long-term foster care should return home.

2021(Id. at pp. 649-650.) It stated: “The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are [1] the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, [2] the foreseeability of harm to him, [3] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [4] the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, [5] the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, and [6] the policy of preventing futur

2017Privity of contract is no longer necessary ... [but] public policy may dictate the existence of a duty to third parties"].) As *122 the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Centinela, "[t]he test for determining the existence of such an exceptional duty to third parties is set forth in the seminal case of Biakanja , supra , 49 Cal.2d at page 650 , 320 P.2d 16 , as follows: 'The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are [1] the extent to which the transac

2021(In re Matthew P. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 841, 850 .) “Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors.” (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 .) We independently consider whether the proceedings below complied with the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process.

2016(In re Matthew P. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 841, 850 .) "Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors." (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 .) In the context of child dependency litigation, due process requirements are focused principally on the right to notice and a hearing.

2022Although parents in dependency proceedings have a right to due process, that right “is not synonymous with full-fledged cross-examination rights. [Citation.] Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors. [Citation.]” (Jeanette V., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 817 .) As has been observed (a point critical to the analysis of father’s claim of error here), “[d]ifferent levels of due process protection apply at different stages of dependency proceedings. [Citations.]” (Thomas R., supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 733 .) Up until a 366.26 heari

2014Due process in dependency cases “is not synonymous with full-fledged cross- examination rights. [Citation.] [I]t is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors. [Citation.] The due process right to present evidence is limited to relevant evidence of significant probative value to the issue before the court. [Citations.] Even where cross-examination is involved, the trial court may properly request an offer of proof if an entire line of cross-examination appears to the court to be irrelevant to the issue before the court. [Citations.]” (In re Jeane

2021(Rainer v. Grossman, supra, 31 Cal.App.3d at p. 542 .) Whether such a duty exists “is a question of law.” (Ibid.) “ ‘A duty may arise through statute, contract, or the relationship of the parties.’ [Citations.]” (Lichtman v. Siemens Industry Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 914, 920 , fn. omitted.) “A duty running from a defendant to a plaintiff may arise from contract, even though the plaintiff and the defendant are not in privity.” (Id. at p. 921, fn. omitted.) “Under these circumstances, the existence of a duty is not the general rule, but may be found based on public policy considerations.” (Ibi

2017Privity of contract is no longer necessary ... [but] public policy may dictate the existence of a duty to third parties"].) As *122 the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Centinela, "[t]he test for determining the existence of such an exceptional duty to third parties is set forth in the seminal case of Biakanja , supra , 49 Cal.2d at page 650 , 320 P.2d 16 , as follows: 'The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are [1] the extent to which the transac

2020The exclusion of this testimony did not violate Father’s due process rights. “ ‘Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors. [Citation.] The due process right to present evidence is limited to relevant evidence of significant probative value to the issue before the court.’ ” (Sheri T. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 334, 341 .) The existence of a bond was not in dispute, the therapist never provided professional services to Minor, and the last time she saw Minor was more than two years before the section 366.26 hearing.

2014It is well recognized that due process “is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors,” and, more specifically, that “the due process right to present evidence is limited to relevant evidence of significant probative value to the issue before the court.” (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 ; see Sheri T. v. Superior Court (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 334, 341 .) Even where due process rights are triggered, it must be determined “what process is due.” (In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368, 383 , partially superseded by statute on another

2016(Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 756-757 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 ] [right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, “at least at the jurisdictional phase”]; In re Amy M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 849, 864 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 788 ].) Due process “is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors.” (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 534 ], citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 992 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 , 920 P.2d 716 ].) Father argues the juvenile court’s decision to go forward with the section 387 hearin

2016(Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 756-757 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 ] [right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, “at least at the jurisdictional phase”]; In re Amy M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 849, 864 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 788 ].) Due process “is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors.” (In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 534 ], citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 992 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 , 920 P.2d 716 ].) Father argues the juvenile court’s decision to go forward with the section 387 hearin

2010In the matter before us, assuming a title search would have revealed the existence of deeds of trust against the property, this does not mean that constructive notice of those recorded deeds of trust would necessarily preclude an action based on the alleged breach of a duty to disclose. (3) Balancing of factors The brokers, in support of their position, cite Merrill v. Buck (1962) 58 Cal.2d 552 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 375 P.2d 304 ], In a case having to do with the duty of a real estate agent to a person with whom she had no privity of contract, the court stated: “ ‘The determination whether in a

2010In the matter before us, assuming a title search would have revealed the existence of deeds of trust against the property, this does not mean that constructive notice of those recorded deeds of trust would necessarily preclude an action based on the alleged breach of a duty to disclose. (3) Balancing of factors The brokers, in support of their position, cite Merrill v. Buck (1962) 58 Cal.2d 552 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 375 P.2d 304 ], In a case having to do with the duty of a real estate agent to a person with whom she had no privity of contract, the court stated: “ ‘The determination whether in a

2020(Id. at pp. 816-817; see also Grace P., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 612; Tamika T., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1122 .) 10 Although a parent in general has a right to due process in dependency proceedings, “ ‘due process “is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors.” [Citations.] . . .

2013(Id. at p. 1120.) The Court of Appeal, quoting its earlier opinion in In re Jeanette V. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 811 (Jeanette V.), explained that while a parent ―of course . . . has a right to due process‖ at a section 366.26 hearing, ― ‗due process is not synonymous with full- fledged cross-examination rights. [Citation.] Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors. [Citation.] The due process right to present evidence is limited to relevant evidence of significant probative value to the issue before the court. [Citations.] Even wher

2023(Ibid.; see Gas Leak Cases, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 401 [“Discerning whether there is a special relationship justifying liability [for purely economic loss by a third party] can nonetheless be a subtle enterprise” involving balancing of the Biakanja factors]; J’Aire, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 804 [applying Biakanja factors to find duty of care owed to third party lessee]; Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2014) 59 Cal.4th 568 , 578 their coach, who was a member of the association]; Regents, at p. 613 [universities have special relationship with their students “a

2022In Biakanja, the California Supreme Court articulated a multifactor test for determining whether a defendant had a duty of due care to protect a plaintiff from injury and was liable for damage caused by the defendant’s negligence even though they were not in privity of contract. ( Biakanja, supra, 49 Cal.2d at pp. 648, 650.) The court held: “The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect

2022(Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 753 .) “The state and federal Constitutions guarantee no state shall deprive parents of this interest in their children without due process of law, which includes the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in dependency proceedings. [Citations.]” (David B. v. Superior Court (2006) 28 140 Cal.App.4th 772, 777 (David B.).) In the context of dependency proceedings, however, “due process is not synonymous with full-fledged cross-examination rights. [Citation.] Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of v

2016(Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 753-754 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 606 ]; Stanley v. Illinois (1972) 405 U.S. 645, 658 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 551, 562-563 ].)” (Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 756-757 .) However, “due process also is a flexible concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the balancing of various factors. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 757.) 12 “Substantive due process prohibits governmental interference with a person’s fundamental right to life, liberty or property by unreasonable or arbitrary legislation. [Citation.] In substantive due process law, depr

2022Although parents in dependency proceedings have a right to due process, that right “is not synonymous with full-fledged cross-examination rights. [Citation.] Due process is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors. [Citation.]” (Jeanette V., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 817 .) As has been observed (a point critical to the analysis of father’s claim of error here), “[d]ifferent levels of due process protection apply at different stages of dependency proceedings. [Citations.]” (Thomas R., supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 733 .) Up until a 366.26 heari

2016(Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 753-754 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 606 ]; Stanley v. Illinois (1972) 405 U.S. 645, 658 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 551, 562-563 ].)” (Ingrid E. v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 751, 756-757 .) However, “due process also is a flexible concept, whose application depends on the circumstances and the balancing of various factors. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 757.) 12 “Substantive due process prohibits governmental interference with a person’s fundamental right to life, liberty or property by unreasonable or arbitrary legislation. [Citation.] In substantive due process law, depr

2006The court articulated a case-by-case test for identifying such a duty. `The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity,' we wrote, `is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors ....' [Citation.] The six factors were: `[1] the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, [2] the foreseeability of harm to him, [3] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [4] the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, [5] the moral blame

2006The court articulated a case-by-case test for identifying such a duty. `The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity,' we wrote, `is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors ....' [Citation.] The six factors were: `[1] the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, [2] the foreseeability of harm to him, [3] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [4] the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, [5] the moral blame

2024(In re J.S. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1071, 1081 .) This includes, “a meaningful opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and confront witnesses.” (In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605, 612 .) Just what amount of process is due “ ‘is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors.’ ” (In re J.S., at p. 1081.) At a section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court must determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the child is adoptable; and if a child is adoptable, the juvenile court must then terminate parental rights and order the child be placed fo

2020(Id. at pp. 816-817; see also Grace P., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 612; Tamika T., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1122 .) 10 Although a parent in general has a right to due process in dependency proceedings, “ ‘due process “is a flexible concept which depends upon the circumstances and a balancing of various factors.” [Citations.] . . .