careful analysis in California

2017“Even a hearsay statement that is facially inculpatory of the declarant may, when considered in context, also be exculpatory or have a net exculpatory effect.” ( Duarte, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 612.) The determination whether a statement is specifically disserving “necessarily depends upon a careful analysis of what was said and the totality of the circumstances.” (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 335 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 ].) In People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 745 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 808 P.2d 1197 ] (Frierson), the Supreme Court stated that the “focus” of the declarat

2017“Even a hearsay statement that is facially inculpatory of the declarant may, when considered in context, also be exculpatory or have a net exculpatory effect.” (Duarte, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 612 .) The determination whether a statement is specifically disserving “necessarily depends upon a careful analysis of what was said and the totality of the circumstances.” (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 335 .) In People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 745 (Frierson), the Supreme Court stated that the “focus” of the declaration against interest exception is “the basic 3 In Grimes, s

2021(In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 109 (Automobile Antitrust).) Indeed, the test for personal jurisdiction “ ‘is not susceptible of mechanical application; rather, the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite “affiliating circumstances” are present.’ ” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 (Snowney); see Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 478–479.) Courts furthermore must exercise “ ‘[g]reat care and reserve . . . when extending our notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field.” (As

2005In this setting, “the question whether ‘jurisdiction may be constitutionally exercised depends upon the circumstances of each individual case. . . . [T]he analysis is concerned with weighing the various relevant “contacts” by the foreign corporation within the state attempting to exercise jurisdiction.’ (Empire Steel Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 823, 831 , 17 Cal.Rptr. 150 , 366 P.2d 502 .)” (Sonora, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 536 .) But in every case of an international defendant, the procedural and substantive interests of other nations in a state court’s assertion of jurisdicti

2017After noting the conflict between the employer's interest to be immune from liability "for the employee's injury or death that occurs in the everyday transit from home to office or plant [and] the contrary interest of the employee [ ] in his desire to be protected from loss by injury or death that occurs in the non-routine transit" ( Hinojosa , supra , at pp. 156-157, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 501 P.2d 1176 ), the court concluded: We think a careful analysis of the decisions will develop the formula that reconciles the divergent positions.

2017After noting the conflict between the employer's interest to be immune from liability "for the employee's injury or death that occurs in the everyday transit from home to office or plant [and] the contrary interest of the employee [ ] in his desire to be protected from loss by injury or death that occurs in the non-routine transit" ( Hinojosa , supra , at pp. 156-157, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 501 P.2d 1176 ), the court concluded: We think a careful analysis of the decisions will develop the formula that reconciles the divergent positions.

2017“Even a hearsay statement that is facially inculpatory of the declarant may, when considered in context, also be exculpatory or have a net exculpatory effect.” ( Duarte, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 612.) The determination whether a statement is specifically disserving “necessarily depends upon a careful analysis of what was said and the totality of the circumstances.” (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 335 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 ].) In People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 745 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 808 P.2d 1197 ] (Frierson), the Supreme Court stated that the “focus” of the declarat

2017“Even a hearsay statement that is facially inculpatory of the declarant may, when considered in context, also be exculpatory or have a net exculpatory effect.” (Duarte, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 612 .) The determination whether a statement is specifically disserving “necessarily depends upon a careful analysis of what was said and the totality of the circumstances.” (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 335 .) In People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 745 (Frierson), the Supreme Court stated that the “focus” of the declaration against interest exception is “the basic 3 In Grimes, s

2023(Ibid.; see also People v. Wilson (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 271, 276 [fact that the statement is also disserving to nondeclarant does not render the statement unreliable and inadmissible].) A remedy for the mixed nature of some statements—those that are part inculpatory and part self-serving, is redaction.

1997(People v. Wilson, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 276 [“The fact that the statement is also disserving to [nondeclarant] does not render the statement unreliable and inadmissible. . . .”]; U.S. v. Sasso, supra, 59 F.3d at 349 ; People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 1252-1253.) Determination of whether a statement is trustworthy is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.

2022There would be no point in Congress requiring the federal agency to consider the state agency recommendations on environmental matters and make its own decisions about which to accept, if the state agencies had the power to impose the requirements themselves.” (Sayles Hydro, supra, 985 F.2d at p. 456.) The majority argues that “First Iowa and California v. FERC could be read to apply either conflict or field preemption.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 18.) Sayles Hydro acknowledged as much (Sayles Hydro, supra, 985 F.2d at pp. 455, 456), and the point does not answer the Ninth Circuit’s careful analy

2022There would be no point in Congress requiring the federal agency to consider the state agency recommendations on environmental matters and make its own decisions about which to accept, if the state agencies had the power to impose the requirements themselves.” (Sayles Hydro, supra, 985 F.2d at p. 456.) The majority argues that “First Iowa and California v. FERC could be read to apply either conflict or field preemption.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 18.) Sayles Hydro acknowledged as much (Sayles Hydro, supra, 985 F.2d at pp. 455, 456), and the point does not answer the Ninth Circuit’s careful analy

2021Exchange (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101 (James 3); see Golden Eagle Ins.

2021Exchange (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101 (James 3); see Golden Eagle Ins.

2019(See maj. opn., ante , at p. 538 [ 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 , 431 P.3d 1180 ].) Those cases all involved the use of a sharp object in a threatening manner, and in all three cases an argument could be made that great bodily injury was not probable , but the deadly weapon finding was nonetheless upheld." ( B.M. , at pp. 539-540, 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 , 431 P.3d 1180 (conc. opn. of Chin, J.).) Finally, Justice Chin suggested that, when the Supreme Court does squarely address the meaning of " 'likely' " for purposes of assault with a deadly weapon, "our resolution of the question [will] call[ ] for a car

2019(See maj. opn., ante , at p. 538 [ 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 , 431 P.3d 1180 ].) Those cases all involved the use of a sharp object in a threatening manner, and in all three cases an argument could be made that great bodily injury was not probable , but the deadly weapon finding was nonetheless upheld." ( B.M. , at pp. 539-540, 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 , 431 P.3d 1180 (conc. opn. of Chin, J.).) Finally, Justice Chin suggested that, when the Supreme Court does squarely address the meaning of " 'likely' " for purposes of assault with a deadly weapon, "our resolution of the question [will] call[ ] for a car

2025This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument, comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.’” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489 .) The trial court correctly sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action.

2024This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument, comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.’ ” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489 .) 8 Teng’s sole allegation in her appellate briefing—that Chase “had a contractual duty to provide notice of mortgage payments and breached that duty”— satisfies neither standard.

2018Exchange , supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1007 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) A case by case analysis is required: *234 "The potential for conflict requires a careful analysis of the parties' respective interests to determine whether they can be reconciled (such as by a defense based on total nonliability) or whether an actual conflict of interest precludes insurer-appointed defense counsel from presenting a quality defense for the insured.

2018Exchange , supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 1007 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 .) A case by case analysis is required: *234 "The potential for conflict requires a careful analysis of the parties' respective interests to determine whether they can be reconciled (such as by a defense based on total nonliability) or whether an actual conflict of interest precludes insurer-appointed defense counsel from presenting a quality defense for the insured.

2020Bearden, supra, 461 U.S. at page 666 , footnote 7 (citing Morrissey v. 5 Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 ; Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778 ). 12 [a] fine” (ibid.), the court announced a multifactor balancing test in which “[d]ue process and equal protection principles converge.” (Id. at p. 665.)6 Instead of utilizing a traditional equal protection approach focused on invidious discrimination against a suspect class or the traditional substantive due process approach of identifying a burden on a fundamental right, the court announced a new, hybrid test in the following terms: “the issue cann

2020Bearden, supra, 461 U.S. at page 666 , footnote 7 (citing Morrissey v. 5 Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 ; Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778 ). 12 [a] fine” (ibid.), the court announced a multifactor balancing test in which “[d]ue process and equal protection principles converge.” (Id. at p. 665.)6 Instead of utilizing a traditional equal protection approach focused on invidious discrimination against a suspect class or the traditional substantive due process approach of identifying a burden on a fundamental right, the court announced a new, hybrid test in the following terms: “the issue cann

2014Such a determination necessarily depends upon a careful analysis of what was said and the totality of the circumstances. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 335.) In People v. Cervantes (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 162 (Cervantes), a nontestifying codefendant, Morales, inculpated himself and his two codefendants, Cervantes and Martinez, in a murder and an attempted murder while speaking to a friend of all three defendants, Ojeda.

2013Such a determination necessarily depends upon a careful analysis of what was said and the totality of the circumstances. [Citations.]” (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 334-335 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 ] (Greenberger); accord, People v. Cervantes (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 162, 174-175 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 ] (Cervantes).) When a trial court bases its ruling on a conclusion of law, or a mistake of law, we review de novo but when'we review a ruling admitting or excluding evidence we ask whether the ruling is an abuse of discretion.

2026This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument, comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.” [Citation.]’” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 993 .) Jane Does did not attach the insurance policy and, in fact, opposed CCIC’s request for judicial notice of the policy.

2022This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument, comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.’” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489 ; accord, Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 993 .) The second amended complaint alleged Williams executed a “signature card that serves as a contract between a bank and its depositor,” which purported contract is attached as an exhibit to the second amended complaint.

2023(People v. Wycoff (2021) 12 Cal.5th 58, 90 ; People v. Teron (1978) 23 Cal.3d 103 , 113–114.) 27 PEOPLE v. WALDON Opinion of the Court by Liu, J.

1986Again, the Teron court ruled there was nothing suggestive of mental illness before the trial court when it initially granted defendant's motion to proceed in propria persona, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to make a careful inquiry into his capacity to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at that time. ( People v. Teron, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 114 .) The court went on to suggest that later in the proceedings when some indicia of mental incapacity did begin to surface, the trial court "would have acted within its discretion in ordering a psychiatric

2021(In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 109 (Automobile Antitrust).) Indeed, the test for personal jurisdiction “ ‘is not susceptible of mechanical application; rather, the facts of each case must be weighed to determine whether the requisite “affiliating circumstances” are present.’ ” (Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1054, 1061 (Snowney); see Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 478–479.) Courts furthermore must exercise “ ‘[g]reat care and reserve . . . when extending our notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field.” (As

2005We make a careful inquiry into the reasonableness of the assertion of jurisdiction in the case before us, being unwilling to find the serious burden on an alien defendant outweighed by minimal interests of the plaintiff or of California. ( F. Hoffman-La Roche, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 795-796, 805, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 407 ; see Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 115 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 .) To exercise personal jurisdiction in these circumstances would be unreasonable and unfair.

2018Whether analyzed in terms of equal protection or due process, the issue cannot be resolved by resort to easy slogans or pigeonhole analysis, but rather requires a careful inquiry into such factors as 17 ‘the nature of the individual interest affected, the extent to which it is affected, the rationality of the connection between legislative means and purpose, [and] the existence of alternative means for effectuating the purpose . . . .’ ” (Ross v. Moffit, supra, 417 U.S. at pp. 666-667, fns. omitted.)10 In imposing a judicial responsibility to inquire into the financial circumstances of an alle

2018Whether analyzed in terms of equal protection or due process, the issue cannot be resolved by resort to easy slogans or pigeonhole analysis, but rather requires a careful inquiry into such factors as 'the nature of the individual interest affected, the extent to which it is affected, the rationality of the connection between *1027 legislative means and purpose, [and] the existence of alternative means for effectuating the purpose ....' " ( Ross v. Moffit t , supra , 417 U.S. at pp. 666-667, 94 S.Ct. 2437 , fns. omitted.) 10 *527 In imposing a judicial responsibility to inquire into the financi

2017“Even a hearsay statement that is facially inculpatory of the declarant may, when considered in context, also be exculpatory or have a net exculpatory effect.” ( Duarte, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 612.) The determination whether a statement is specifically disserving “necessarily depends upon a careful analysis of what was said and the totality of the circumstances.” (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 335 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 ].) In People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 745 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 808 P.2d 1197 ] (Frierson), the Supreme Court stated that the “focus” of the declarat

2017“Even a hearsay statement that is facially inculpatory of the declarant may, when considered in context, also be exculpatory or have a net exculpatory effect.” ( Duarte, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 612.) The determination whether a statement is specifically disserving “necessarily depends upon a careful analysis of what was said and the totality of the circumstances.” (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 335 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 61 ].) In People v. Frierson (1991) 53 Cal.3d 730, 745 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 808 P.2d 1197 ] (Frierson), the Supreme Court stated that the “focus” of the declarat

1986It tells us also that under some circumstances a court’s ruling denying the request for a substitution of attorneys without a careful inquiry into the defendant’s reasons for requesting the substitution ‘is lacking in all the attributes of a judicial determination.’ [Citations.]” This duty-of-inquiry includes “an inquiry into the state of mind of the court-appointed attorney” and an attempt “to ascertain in what particulars the attorney was not providing appellant with a competent defense.” (Ibid.) Munoz has been cited with approval by this court in People v. Lewis, supra, 20 Cal.3d at page 49

1978It tells us also that under some circumstances a court’s ruling denying the request for a substitution of attorneys without a careful inquiry into the defendant’s reasons for requesting the substitution ‘is lacking in all the attributes of a judicial determination.’ [Citations.]” According to Munoz , the duty of the trial court includes “an inquiry into the state of mind of the court-appointed attorney” and an attempt “to ascertain in what particulars the attorney was not providing appellant with a competent defense.” ( 41 Cal.App.3d at p. 66 .) Munoz has been cited with apparent approval by t