clear and convincing standard in Kansas

2022In In re B.D.-Y., the court recast the clear and convincing standard as a level of proof falling between a preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt rather than as an enhanced quality of proof required to establish a preponderance in some situations. 286 Kan. at 691-93 .

2021The clear and convincing standard is an intermediate standard of proof that must be more than a mere preponderance while not beyond a reasonable doubt. 286 Kan. at 693 .

2008There, we quoted much of the above passage from J.D.C. and stated: “In In re J.D.C., this court held that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate J.D.C. was a child in need of care and that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard. 284 Kan. at 170-71 .

2008There, we quoted much of the above passage from J.D.C. and stated: "In In re J.D.C., this court held that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate J.D.C. was a child in need of care and that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard. 284 Kan. at 170-71 , 159 P.3d 974 .

2001In a libel action brought by a “public figure,” that individual is required under the First Amendment to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with “actual malice, a knowing or reckless disregard of die trudi.” That the clear and convincing standard of proof of malice applies at die summary judgment stage was decided in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 91 L.

2001In a libel action brought by a “public figure,” that individual is required under the First Amendment to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with “actual malice, a knowing or reckless disregard of die trudi.” That the clear and convincing standard of proof of malice applies at die summary judgment stage was decided in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 91 L.

2008See, e.g., Newell, 239 Kan. at 557 (fraud; “On review, this court considers only the evidence of the successful party to determine whether it is substantial and whether it is of clear and convincing quality.”); Fox, 211 Kan. at 579-80 (fraud; “We have no hesitancy in finding that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard.”); In re Shirk’s Estate, 194 Kan. 671 , 401 P.2d 279 (1965) (oral contract; “appellate court examines the record and must be satisfied that the findings of the trial court were supported by a quantum of competent and substantial testimony of the quality required by t

2008See, e.g., Newell, 239 Kan. at 557 (fraud; “On review, this court considers only the evidence of the successful party to determine whether it is substantial and whether it is of clear and convincing quality.”); Fox, 211 Kan. at 579-80 (fraud; “We have no hesitancy in finding that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard.”); In re Shirk’s Estate, 194 Kan. 671 , 401 P.2d 279 (1965) (oral contract; “appellate court examines the record and must be satisfied that the findings of the trial court were supported by a quantum of competent and substantial testimony of the quality required by t

2020In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 , Syl. ¶ 3, 187 P.3d 594 (2008).

2009The touchstone of the clear and convincing standard is that the evidence must establish that the truth of the facts asserted is “highly probable.” In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 , Syl. ¶ 3, 187 P.3d 594 (2008).

2008Although it would have been helpful to have the videotape of the Safe Talk in the record on appeal, the testimony of others regarding J.D.C.’s allegations about E.D. met the clear and convincing standard.” (Emphasis added.) We echoed this language in another CINC case, In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375 , 172 P.3d 1 (2007).

2008Although it would have been helpful to have the videotape of the Safe Talk in the record on appeal, the testimony of others regarding J.D.C.'s allegations about E.D. met the clear and convincing standard. " (Emphasis added.) We echoed this language in another CINC case, In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375 , 172 P.3d 1 (2007).

2008Although it would have been helpful to have the videotape of the Safe Talk in the record on appeal, the testimony of others regarding J.D.C.’s allegations about E.D. met the clear and convincing standard.” (Emphasis added.) We echoed this language in another CINC case, In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375 , 172 P.3d 1 (2007).

2008Although it would have been helpful to have the videotape of the Safe Talk in the record on appeal, the testimony of others regarding J.D.C.'s allegations about E.D. met the clear and convincing standard. " (Emphasis added.) We echoed this language in another CINC case, In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375 , 172 P.3d 1 (2007).

2008There, we quoted much of the above passage from J.D.C. and stated: "In In re J.D.C., this court held that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate J.D.C. was a child in need of care and that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard. 284 Kan. at 170-71 , 159 P.3d 974 .

2007In In re J.D.C., this court held that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate J.D.C. was a child in need of care and that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard. 284 Kan. at 170-71 , 159 P.3d 974 .

2008Per direction from the United States Supreme Court, Kansas, like Maine, recognizes that the clear and convincing standard of proof should apply when “ ‘ “particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake.” ’ ” Ortega, 255 Kan. at 528 ; see Santosky, 455 U.S. at 756 (“This Court has mandated an intermediate standard of proof — ‘clear and convincing evidence’ — when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both ‘particularly important’ and ‘more substantial than mere loss of money.’ ”).

2008Per direction from the United States Supreme Court, Kansas, like Maine, recognizes that the clear and convincing standard of *602 proof should apply when "`"particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake."'" Ortega, 255 Kan. at 528 , 874 P.2d 1188 ; see Santosky, 455 U.S. at 756 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 ("This Court has mandated an intermediate standard of proof — `clear and convincing evidence' — when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both `particularly important' and `more substantial than mere loss of money.'").

2001Although the State has the burden to prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence before the district court, the clear and convincing standard does not affect this court's scope of review. 23 Kan.

2001Although the State has the burden to prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence before the district court, the clear and convincing standard does not affect this court’s scope of review. 23 Kan.

2022App. 2d 12, 16 , 561 P.2d 889 (1977), the court appears to endorse the district court's use of a clear and convincing standard in affirming a decision to set aside several deeds.

2018It explained, without reference to the clear and convincing standard of proof, that a transfer of assets may work "in legal effect a fraud" even where the conduct was not intentionally fraudulent. 148 Kan. at 324 , 80 P.2d 1099 .

2018It explained, without reference to the clear and convincing standard of proof, that a transfer of assets may work "in legal effect a fraud" even where the conduct was not intentionally fraudulent. 148 Kan. at 324 , 80 P.2d 1099 .

1995The psychologist in Petition of Grimm, supra, also raised an equal protection claim, asserting that there was no rational basis why the standard in psychologists' disciplinary hearings was preponderance of the evidence, while attorneys enjoy the application of the clear and convincing standard in their disciplinary hearings.

1995App. 2d 807 , 845 P.2d 65 (1993), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1091 (1993), wherein the Court found that the application of the clear and convincing standard at the summary judgment stage is unique to libel cases because First Amendment rights are at issue. 17 Kan.

1993While recognizing evidence existed in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion, the case was remanded for application of the clear and convincing standard of proof, and further consideration of the scrivener’s conflict of interest, whose testimony was crucial to the outcome of the case. 87 N.J. at 185-86 .

1993He reasons that the clear and convincing requirement is greater than the level of proof required in an ordinary civil action, citing In re Ratner, 194 Kan. 362, 366 , 399 P.2d 865 (1965).

1993He reasons that the clear and convincing requirement is greater than the level of proof required in an ordinary civil action, citing In re Ratner, 194 Kan. 362, 366 , 399 P.2d 865 (1965).

1989While the Court has held the preponderance of evidence test applicable to suppression hearings involving possible misconduct by the government [citations omitted], it has applied the clear and convincing standard to questions of admissibility involving constitutional requirements going to the reliability of evidence.” 693 F.2d at 273 .

1983For prior cases failing to adopt the clear and convincing standard see: Bradford v. Mahan, 219 Kan. 450 ; Gardner v. McDowell, 202 Kan. 705 ; Bukaty v. Berglund, 179 Kan. 259 .

1983For prior cases failing to adopt the clear and convincing standard see: Bradford v. Mahan, 219 Kan. 450 ; Gardner v. McDowell, 202 Kan. 705 ; Bukaty v. Berglund, 179 Kan. 259 .

1983For prior cases failing to adopt the clear and convincing standard see: Bradford v. Mahan, 219 Kan. 450 ; Gardner v. McDowell, 202 Kan. 705 ; Bukaty v. Berglund, 179 Kan. 259 .

1983For prior cases failing to adopt the clear and convincing standard see: Bradford v. Mahan, 219 Kan. 450 ; Gardner v. McDowell, 202 Kan. 705 ; Bukaty v. Berglund, 179 Kan. 259 .

1983For prior cases failing to adopt the clear and convincing standard see: Bradford v. Mahan, 219 Kan. 450 ; Gardner v. McDowell, 202 Kan. 705 ; Bukaty v. Berglund, 179 Kan. 259 .

1983For prior cases failing to adopt the clear and convincing standard see: Bradford v. Mahan, 219 Kan. 450 ; Gardner v. McDowell, 202 Kan. 705 ; Bukaty v. Berglund, 179 Kan. 259 .