clear and convincing evidence standard in Kansas

40 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 13 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
In the Interest of B.D.-Y.green kan · 2008 · cited in 15 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2024 2 sentences 2024In re Adoption of Baby Girl G., 311 Kan. 798 , 806, 466 P.3d 1207 (2020); see also In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 705 , 187 P.3d 594 (2008) (holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of review, not the substantial competent evidence standard of review, applies when deciding whether a child is a child in need of care). 2024And they do so without ever recognizing that our Supreme Court explicitly held in In re B.D.-Y., about 16 years ago, that the clear and convincing evidence standard of review, not the substantial competent evidence standard of review, applies when reviewing the district court's parental unfitness findings under K.S.A. 38- 2269(a). 286 Kan. at 700-05 (discussing the modification of the standard of review).	2	15
In Re Arabiagreen kan · 2001 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P. 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P.	2	2
In Re Bd-Y.green kan · 2008 · cited in 14 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2024 2 sentences 2024In re Adoption of Baby Girl G., 311 Kan. 798 , 806, 466 P.3d 1207 (2020); see also In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 705 , 187 P.3d 594 (2008) (holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of review, not the substantial competent evidence standard of review, applies when deciding whether a child is a child in need of care). 2022In reviewing a district court's decision based on the clear and convincing evidence standard, an "appellate court does not weigh conflicting evidence, pass on credibility of witnesses, or redetermine questions of fact." In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 705 , 187 P.3d 594 (2008).	1	14
Cresto v. Crestogreen kan · 2015 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See Cresto, 302 Kan. at 831 ; In re Estate of Wallace, 158 Kan. 633 , Syl. ¶ 4, 149 P.2d 595 (1944).	1	1
In The Interest of M.F.green kan · 2010 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
In the Interest of K.P.green kanctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
In Re the Adoption of X.J.A.green kan · 2007 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008	1	1
Newell v. Krausegreen kan · 1986 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.green scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993	1	1
Modern Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Cinderella Homes, Inc.green kan · 1979 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (48)

Case	Cited	Years
Ortega v. IBP, Inc. green kan · 1994 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P. 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P.	3	2001–2008
In Re the Adoption of A.A.T. green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2011We are guided, however, by important legal precedent which was summarized by our Supreme Court: "When applying K.S.A. 59-2136(h), Kansas appellate courts have strongly endorsed the parental preference doctrine, required strict compliance, and diligently enforced the clear and convincing evidence standard." In re Adoption of A.A.T., 287 Kan. at 625 , 196 P.3d 1180 (citing cases). 2011We are guided, however, by important legal precedent which was summarized by our Supreme Court: "When applying K.S.A. 59-2136(h), Kansas appellate courts have strongly endorsed the parental preference doctrine, required strict compliance, and diligently enforced the clear and convincing evidence standard." In re Adoption of A.A.T., 287 Kan. at 625 , 196 P.3d 1180 (citing cases).	2	2010–2011
Jackman v. Lawrence Drilling & Development Co. neutral kan · 1920 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P. 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P.	2	2008–2008
Chandler v. Central Oil Corp. green kan · 1993 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P. 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P.	2	2008–2008
Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardation green me · 1984 2 sentences 2008The Homer court, like this court in Ortega , had held that the clear and convincing evidence standard “does not identify a level of proof higher than proof by a preponderance, but rather denotes the better quality of evidence that is required to satisfy the preponderance standard.” (Emphasis added.) Taylor, 481 A.2d at 153 . 2008The Horner court, like this court in Ortega , had held that the clear and convincing evidence standard "does not identify a level of proof higher than proof by a preponderance, but rather denotes the better quality of evidence that is required to satisfy the preponderance standard." (Emphasis added.) Taylor, 481 A.2d at 153 .	2	2008–2008
Beeler v. American Trust Co. green cal · 1944 2 sentences 2008In Beeler v. American Trust Co., 24 Cal. 2d 1, 33 , 147 P.2d 583 (1944), the dissenting Justice Traynor observed: “While it rests primarily with the trial court to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing, . . . [i]n such cases it is the duty of the appellate court in reviewing the evidence to determine, not whether the trier of facts could reasonably conclude that it is more probable that the fact to be proved exists than it does not, as in the ordinary civil case where only a preponderance of the evidence is required, but whether the trier of facts could reasonably conclude tha 2008In Beeler v. American Trust Co., 24 Cal. 2d 1, 33 , 147 P.2d 583 (1944), the dissenting Justice Traynor observed: “While it rests primarily with the trial court to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing, . . . [i]n such cases it is the duty of the appellate court in reviewing the evidence to determine, not whether the trier of facts could reasonably conclude that it is more probable that the fact to be proved exists than it does not, as in the ordinary civil case where only a preponderance of the evidence is required, but whether the trier of facts could reasonably conclude tha	2	2008–2008
Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp. green kan · 1992 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P. 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P.	2	2008–2008
In the Interest of Kerns green kan · 1979 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P. 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P.	2	2008–2008
Addington v. Texas green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2008The Taylor court began its analysis by echoing the United States Supreme Court in Addington, 441 U.S. at 423 , concerning the function of a standard of proof: “[A] standard of proof serves to allocate the risk of error [between the litigants] and to instruct the factfinder as to the degree of confidence society expects for a particular decision. 2008The Taylor court began its analysis by echoing the United States Supreme Court in Addington, 441 U.S. at 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , concerning the function of a standard of proof: "[A] standard of proof serves to allocate the risk of error [between the litigants] and to instruct the factfinder as to the degree of confidence society expects for a particular decision.	2	2008–2008
Hoch v. Hoch green kan · 1961 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P. 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P.	2	2008–2008
Hobbs v. City of Pawhuska neutral oklacrimapp · 1920 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P. 2008See, e.g., In re Arabia, 270 Kan. 742 , 19 P.3d 113 (2001) (attorney discipline); Ortega v. IBP, Inc., 255 Kan. 513 , 874 P.2d 1188 (1994) (retaliation for workers compensation claim); Chandler v. Central Oil Corp., 253 Kan. 50 , 853 P.2d 649 (1993) (to prove invalidity of marriage); Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 , 827 P.2d 24 (1992) (whether agency relationship exists); In re Kerns, 225 Kan. 746 , 594 P.2d 187 (1979) (permanent deprivation of parental rights); Hoch v. Hoch, 187 Kan. 730 , 359 P.2d 839 (1961) (fraud); Jackman v. Development Co., 106 Kan. 59 , 187 P.	2	2008–2008
Baumann v. Excel Industries, Inc. green kanctapp · 1993 2 sentences 2001App. 2d 807 , 845 P.2d 65 , rev. denied 252 Kan. 1091 (1993), a panel of the Court of Appeals, including now-justice Davis, gave thoughtful consideration to this question and concluded that the clear and convincing evidence standard need not be met at a summary judgment stage of the proceedings: “We conclude the application of a clear and convincing evidence standard at the summary judgment stage is unique to libel cases because First Amendment rights are at issue. 2001“We conclude die district court erred in requiring Baumann to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard at diat stage of the proceedings.” 17 Kan.	2	2001–2001
In Re LDB neutral kanctapp · 1995 2 sentences 1996In In 823 re L.D.B., 20 Kan. 1996*In In re L.D.B., 20 Kan.	2	1996–1996
In re Murphy green kan · 2020 2 sentences 2026See In re Gamble, 319 Kan. at 695 ("Whether submitted by evidence through an adversarial system or by uncontested agreement, we review it under the same standard—ascertaining the existence of clear and 60 convincing evidence to support a legal conclusion."); In re Murphy, 312 Kan. 203, 218 , 473 P.3d 886 (2020) (clear and convincing evidence is evidence causing the factfinder to believe the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable). 2026See In re Gamble, 319 Kan. at 695 ("Whether submitted by evidence through an adversarial system or by uncontested agreement, we review it under the same standard—ascertaining the existence of clear and 60 convincing evidence to support a legal conclusion."); In re Murphy, 312 Kan. 203, 218 , 473 P.3d 886 (2020) (clear and convincing evidence is evidence causing the factfinder to believe the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable).	1	2026–2026
In re Adoption of Baby Girl G. green kan · 2020 1 sentence 2024In re Adoption of Baby Girl G., 311 Kan. 798 , 806, 466 P.3d 1207 (2020); see also In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686, 705 , 187 P.3d 594 (2008) (holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of review, not the substantial competent evidence standard of review, applies when deciding whether a child is a child in need of care).	1	2024–2024
In Re the Estate of Relihan green kanctapp · 1980 1 sentence 2022In In re Estate of Relihan, 4 Kan.	1	2022–2022
In the Interest of M.H. green kanctapp · 2014 1 sentence 2022In re M.H., 50 Kan.	1	2022–2022
In Re Interests K.H. green kanctapp · 2019 1 sentence 2021In reviewing a district court's decision based on a clear and convincing evidence standard, "an appellate court does not weigh conflicting evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or redetermine questions of fact." 56 Kan.	1	2021–2021
In re Adoption of C.L. green kan · 2018 1 sentence 2020In re Adoption of C.L., 308 Kan. 1268 , 1278, 427 P.3d 951 (2018).	1	2020–2020
Cool v. Cool green kan · 1969 2 sentences 2020The In re Marriage of Mullokandova court traced the requirement of clear and convincing evidence standard to Lee v. Brown, 210 Kan. 168, 170 , 499 P.2d 1076 (1972), and explained: "In [Lee], the Kansas Supreme Court stated that the grounds for a motion under K.S.A. 60-260(b) must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and cited generally Cool v. Cool, 203 Kan. 749 , 457 P.2d 60 (1969). 2020The In re Marriage of Mullokandova court traced the requirement of clear and convincing evidence standard to Lee v. Brown, 210 Kan. 168, 170 , 499 P.2d 1076 (1972), and explained: "In [Lee], the Kansas Supreme Court stated that the grounds for a motion under K.S.A. 60-260(b) must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and cited generally Cool v. Cool, 203 Kan. 749 , 457 P.2d 60 (1969).	1	2020–2020
Lee v. Brown green kan · 1972 2 sentences 2020The In re Marriage of Mullokandova court traced the requirement of clear and convincing evidence standard to Lee v. Brown, 210 Kan. 168, 170 , 499 P.2d 1076 (1972), and explained: "In [Lee], the Kansas Supreme Court stated that the grounds for a motion under K.S.A. 60-260(b) must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and cited generally Cool v. Cool, 203 Kan. 749 , 457 P.2d 60 (1969). 2020The In re Marriage of Mullokandova court traced the requirement of clear and convincing evidence standard to Lee v. Brown, 210 Kan. 168, 170 , 499 P.2d 1076 (1972), and explained: "In [Lee], the Kansas Supreme Court stated that the grounds for a motion under K.S.A. 60-260(b) must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and cited generally Cool v. Cool, 203 Kan. 749 , 457 P.2d 60 (1969).	1	2020–2020
Woessner v. Labor Max Staffing green kanctapp · 2019 1 sentence 2020In remanding the case to the Board for further proceedings on this factual issue, the panel decided it was "not comfortable evaluating this alternative basis for the Board’s decision without a more complete explanation of why it found McGraw's testimony to meet the clear-and-convincing evidence test given Dr. Long's related testimony." Woessner, 56 Kan.	1	2020–2020
In Re the Estate of Newland green kan · 1986 2 sentences 2020The Garcia court also found that "K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6) 'is to be liberally construed to preserve the delicate balance between the conflicting principles that litigation be brought to an end and that justice be done in light of all the facts.'" 303 Kan. at 570 (quoting In re Estate of Newland, 240 Kan. 249, 260 , 730 P.2d 351 [1986]). 2020The Garcia court also found that "K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6) 'is to be liberally construed to preserve the delicate balance between the conflicting principles that litigation be brought to an end and that justice be done in light of all the facts.'" 303 Kan. at 570 (quoting In re Estate of Newland, 240 Kan. 249, 260 , 730 P.2d 351 [1986]).	1	2020–2020
Santosky v. Kramer green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2019In requiring states to use at least a clear and convincing evidence standard when terminating parental rights, the United States Supreme Court noted a magnified risk of erroneous fact-finding because the proceedings "employ imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge." Santosky , 455 U.S. at 762 . 2019The Court also noted that termination proceedings are frequently vulnerable to cultural or class bias because they involve parents who are often poor, uneducated, and members of minority groups, and the State's ability to present its case through experienced attorneys, medical experts, and involved agency caseworkers dwarfs the parents' ability to mount a defense. 455 U.S. at 763 .	1	2019–2019
Fish v. Poorman green kan · 1911 2 sentences 2019He cites to a 1911 case, Fish v. Poorman, 85 Kan. 237, 244-45 , 116 P. 898 (1911), which stated that a party might rebut a presumption of competence through a preponderance of the evidence. 22 The current state of the law, however, is that the same standard—clear and convincing evidence—applies for wills, contracts, and deeds. 2019He cites to a 1911 case, Fish v. Poorman, 85 Kan. 237, 244-45 , 116 P. 898 (1911), which stated that a party might rebut a presumption of competence through a preponderance of the evidence. 22 The current state of the law, however, is that the same standard—clear and convincing evidence—applies for wills, contracts, and deeds.	1	2019–2019
Estate of Wallace v. Hotchkiss green kan · 1944 2 sentences 2019See Cresto, 302 Kan. at 831 ; In re Estate of Wallace, 158 Kan. 633 , Syl. ¶ 4, 149 P.2d 595 (1944). 2019See Cresto, 302 Kan. at 831 ; In re Estate of Wallace, 158 Kan. 633 , Syl. ¶ 4, 149 P.2d 595 (1944).	1	2019–2019
In Re SMH green kanctapp · 2005	1	2017–2017
In Re Swanson green kan · 2009	1	2015–2015
In Re Adoption of Trent green kan · 1981	1	2008–2008
Nelson v. Nelson green scotus · 1996	1	2008–2008
Great Western Bank v. Kapsimalis green scotus · 1996	1	2008–2008
Bowlin v. Mease green scotus · 1996	1	2008–2008
In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl S. green kan · 2002	1	2008–2008
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy B. green kan · 1994	1	2008–2008
In Re KDO green kanctapp · 1995	1	2008–2008
In Re Lathrop green kanctapp · 1978	1	2008–2008
In the Interest of Baby Boy N. green kanctapp · 1994	1	2008–2008
In Re Adoption of F.A.R. green kan · 1987	1	2008–2008
In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl S. green kanctapp · 2001	1	2008–2008
Hodge v. Jones green scotus · 1994	1	2008–2008

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 38-2269 (16) KS § K.S.A. § 38-2201 (10) KS § K.S.A. § 38-2202 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 38-2271 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 38-2273 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 38-1502 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 38-2250 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 59-2136 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-414 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 77-621 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TN 374 (1996–2026) TX 306 (1980–2026) CA 247 (1948–2026) OH 185 (1987–2026) PA 115 (1983–2026) NY 101 (1980–2026) OR 97 (1981–2026) AL 81 (1979–2026) MI 79 (1978–2026) IN 64 (1983–2026) FL 62 (1974–2025) IL 58 (1977–2026) NM 52 (1982–2026) DC 49 (1981–2025) CT 47 (1986–2025) AK 44 (1983–2025) KS 40 (1979–2026) GA 37 (1984–2021) OK 35 (1995–2024) LA 35 (1991–2025) MD 34 (1976–2021) AZ 33 (1969–2026) CO 30 (1982–2025) MN 29 (1987–2025) VT 29 (1983–2026) ME 28 (1984–2024) NJ 28 (1979–2021) IA 24 (1982–2025) WA 24 (1986–2026) UT 22 (1951–2024) MO 21 (1992–2025) NC 18 (1983–2024) WI 18 (1967–2025) NV 16 (1986–2025) VA 16 (1995–2022) SD 15 (1975–2011) MA 13 (1984–2026) ND 13 (1986–2026) MS 13 (1989–2024) HI 11 (1963–2026) ID 11 (1975–2024) KY 11 (1986–2025) DE 9 (1982–2025) RI 8 (1989–2026) WY 7 (1986–2022) NE 7 (1993–2024) MT 7 (1997–2021) WV 6 (2019–2026) AR 5 (1979–2016) VI 4 (2013–2025) NH 4 (2011–2025) SC 2 (2001–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check