28 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardationgreen2 sentences2014Further, “the policies that motivated the imposition of the clear and convincing evidence standard apply with equal force at both the factfind-ing and appellate stages.” Taylor, 481 A.2d at 153 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 56] Viewing Bailey’s actions as identified in the six counts of misconduct, we conclude that Bailey met his burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence only with respect to the question of whether he recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of having sent an ex parte communication to Judge Paul (Count VII). 2003In order to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof, the party bearing the burden of persuasion may prevail only if she can "place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [her] factual contentions are 'highly probable.’ ” Taylor v. Comm'r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 481 A.2d 139, 153 (Me.1984) (quoting Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 , 104 S.Ct. 2433 , 81 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). | 3 | 4 |
Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Mooregreen2 sentences2017See Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 27 , 90 A.3d 1169 (establishing a clear and convincing evidence standard in the absence of legislation when interference with fundamental rights is at issue); cf. In re Marcia E. 2012 ME 139, ¶ 4 , 58 A.3d 1115 . 2017See Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 27 , 90 A.3d 1169 (establishing a clear and convincing evidence standard in the absence of legislation when interference with fundamental rights is at issue); cf. In re Marcia E. 2012 ME 139, ¶ 4 , 58 A.3d 1115 . | 2 | 3 |
Hiller v. Fauseygreen2 sentences2024They urge us to go beyond the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and determine whether termination of the mother’s parental rights, based on a finding that she is unfit due to her inability to resolve jeopardy and take responsibility for the child and his complicated medical needs, was the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest, see Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 875, 885-86 (Pa. 2006), given that the State has failed to provide 24/7 private nursing care to the child that could enable the mother to care for him. [¶16] We agree that we must review this case with reg 2024They urge us to go beyond the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and determine whether termination of the mother’s parental rights, based on a finding that she is unfit due to her inability to resolve jeopardy and take responsibility for the child and his complicated medical needs, was the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest, see Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 875, 885-86 (Pa. 2006), given that the State has failed to provide 24/7 private nursing care to the child that could enable the mother to care for him. [¶16] We agree that we must review this case with reg | 2 | 2 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2019The Court further held that "determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than [clear and convincing evidence] is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts." Id. at 769-70 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 . [¶8] We have since affirmed that the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally sufficient in termination of parental rights cases, In re Crystal S. , 483 A.2d 1210 , 1210, 1213 (Me. 1984), and stated that "[t]he Maine Legislature appropriately adopted the clear and convincing evidence standard in the statute governing the termination 2019The Court further held that "determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than [clear and convincing evidence] is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts." Id. at 769-70 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 . [¶8] We have since affirmed that the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally sufficient in termination of parental rights cases, In re Crystal S. , 483 A.2d 1210 , 1210, 1213 (Me. 1984), and stated that "[t]he Maine Legislature appropriately adopted the clear and convincing evidence standard in the statute governing the termination | 1 | 3 |
Addington v. Texasgreen1 sentence2021See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Guardianship of Jakob A. Gionestgreen2 sentences2016See Guardianship of Gionest, 2015 ME 154, ¶5 , 128 A.3d 1062 ; Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 27 , 90 A.3d 1169 . 2016See Guardianship of Gionest, 2015 ME 154, ¶5 , 128 A.3d 1062 ; Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 27 , 90 A.3d 1169 . | 1 | 1 |
In re Amanda H.green2 sentences2011Cf. In re Amanda H., 2007 ME 43, ¶ 3 , 917 A.2d 1120, 1120-21 (holding that “[a] court may not enter an order terminating parental rights in the absence of an explicitly stated finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the child.... 2011Cf. In re Amanda H., 2007 ME 43, ¶ 3 , 917 A.2d 1120, 1120-21 (holding that “[a] court may not enter an order terminating parental rights in the absence of an explicitly stated finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the child.... | 1 | 1 |
Maine Eye Care Associates P.A. v. Gormangreen2 sentences2008See Maine Eye Care Assoc. v. Gorman, 2006 ME 15, ¶¶ 1, 22 , 890 A.2d 707, 708, 712 . 2008See Maine Eye Care Assoc. v. Gorman, 2006 ME 15, ¶¶ 1, 22 , 890 A.2d 707, 708, 712 . | 1 | 1 |
Petit v. Key Bank of Mainegreen1 sentence2008See Petit v. Key Bank of Maine, 688 A.2d 427, 431 (Me. 1996) (declining to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard to the "fraud or intimidation" element of the tort of wrongful interference with an advantageous economic relationship). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Thomas B.green2 sentences2001See In re Thomas B., 1998 ME 236, ¶ 2, 719 A.2d 529, 530 . 2001See In re Thomas B., 1998 ME 236, ¶ 2, 719 A.2d 529, 530 . | 1 | 1 |
Littlefield v. Adlergreen2 sentences2000See Littlefield v. Adler, 676 A.2d 940, 942 (Me. 1996). . 2000See Littlefield v. Adler, 676 A.2d 940, 942 (Me.1996). [3] On January 16, 1998, the trial court further ordered Green Tree to pay $2100 toward the Pattens' attorney fees. [4] Title 14 M.R.S.A. § 1901(2)(A) (Supp.1999) provides: "A party must appeal from a District Court judgment in an action of foreclosure and sale directly to the Supreme Judicial Court within 30 days of the judgment." See id. [5] The trial court also denied Green Tree's motion for clarification and amendment of judgment. [6] The trial court awarded attorney fees to the Pattens in a January 16, 1998 order. | 1 | 1 |
Tuttle v. Raymondgreen1 sentence1993Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353, 1363 (Me.1985). 9 . | 1 | 1 |
Application of Hughesgreen1 sentence1992The Board of Bar Examiners contends that certain findings of fact are unsupported by the record and that the single justice failed to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard required by our opinion on the Board’s first appeal, Application of Hughes, 594 A.2d 1098, 1101 (Me.1991) (Hughes I). | 1 | 1 |
| Allen v. Radackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Thomas H.
green
2 sentences2019Specifying again that all findings were made by clear and convincing evidence, the court found that "[w]hen the children came into care, the parents continued their unsafe [lifestyle], failed to alleviate jeopardy, and failed to recognize their need to understand the needs of their children and what role they play in the Department taking their children into care." The record supports the court's findings, to the clear and convincing evidence standard, that at least one ground of parental unfitness had been proved, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(ii), and that termination of the parents' righ 2019Specifying again that all findings were made by clear and convincing evidence, the court found that "[w]hen the children came into care, the parents continued their unsafe [lifestyle], failed to alleviate jeopardy, and failed to recognize their need to understand the needs of their children and what role they play in the Department taking their children into care." The record supports the court's findings, to the clear and convincing evidence standard, that at least one ground of parental unfitness had been proved, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(ii), and that termination of the parents' righ | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Guardianship of Sebastien Chamberlain
green
2 sentences2019The Court further held that "determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than [clear and convincing evidence] is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts." Id. at 769-70 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 . [¶8] We have since affirmed that the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally sufficient in termination of parental rights cases, In re Crystal S. , 483 A.2d 1210 , 1210, 1213 (Me. 1984), and stated that "[t]he Maine Legislature appropriately adopted the clear and convincing evidence standard in the statute governing the termination 2019The Court further held that "determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than [clear and convincing evidence] is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts." Id. at 769-70 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 . [¶8] We have since affirmed that the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally sufficient in termination of parental rights cases, In re Crystal S. , 483 A.2d 1210 , 1210, 1213 (Me. 1984), and stated that "[t]he Maine Legislature appropriately adopted the clear and convincing evidence standard in the statute governing the termination | 2 | 2015–2019 |
In re Marcia E.
green
2 sentences2017See Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 27 , 90 A.3d 1169 (establishing a clear and convincing evidence standard in the absence of legislation when interference with fundamental rights is at issue); cf. In re Marcia E. 2012 ME 139, ¶ 4 , 58 A.3d 1115 . 2017See Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 27 , 90 A.3d 1169 (establishing a clear and convincing evidence standard in the absence of legislation when interference with fundamental rights is at issue); cf. In re Marcia E. 2012 ME 139, ¶ 4 , 58 A.3d 1115 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Colorado v. New Mexico
green
2 sentences2003In order to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof, the party bearing the burden of persuasion may prevail only if she can "place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [her] factual contentions are 'highly probable.’ ” Taylor v. Comm'r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 481 A.2d 139, 153 (Me.1984) (quoting Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 , 104 S.Ct. 2433 , 81 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). 2003In order to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof, the party bearing the burden of persuasion may prevail only if she can "place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [her] factual contentions are 'highly probable.’ ” Taylor v. Comm'r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 481 A.2d 139, 153 (Me.1984) (quoting Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 , 104 S.Ct. 2433 , 81 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). | 2 | 1996–2003 |
In Re the Revocation of the License of Polk
green
1 sentence2021In re Polk, 449 A.2d 7 (N.J. 1981 ); Jones v. Conn. Med. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission
green
1 sentence2021Several of the courts that have upheld the preponderance of the evidence standard have pointed to the United State Supreme Court's decision in Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 (1981) as recognizing that the clear and convincing evidence standard is not required in a proceeding to revoke a license to practice a profession. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Crystal S.
green
1 sentence2019The Court further held that "determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than [clear and convincing evidence] is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts." Id. at 769-70 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 . [¶8] We have since affirmed that the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally sufficient in termination of parental rights cases, In re Crystal S. , 483 A.2d 1210 , 1210, 1213 (Me. 1984), and stated that "[t]he Maine Legislature appropriately adopted the clear and convincing evidence standard in the statute governing the termination | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Hannah S.
green
2 sentences2018LEGAL ANALYSIS [¶ 6] “We review the court’s factual findings for clear error, evaluated pursuant to the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.” In re Hannah S., 2016 ME 32, ¶ 7 , 133 A.3d 590 . 2018LEGAL ANALYSIS [¶ 6] “We review the court’s factual findings for clear error, evaluated pursuant to the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.” In re Hannah S., 2016 ME 32, ¶ 7 , 133 A.3d 590 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rideout v. Riendeau
green
2 sentences2016This record does not compel findings, to the clear and convincing evidence standard, of harm that will have a “dramatic, and even traumatic effect upon [this] child’s well-being,” Rideout, 2000 ME 198, ¶ 26 , 761 A.2d 291 . 2016This record does not compel findings, to the clear and convincing evidence standard, of harm that will have a “dramatic, and even traumatic effect upon [this] child’s well-being,” Rideout, 2000 ME 198, ¶ 26 , 761 A.2d 291 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re R.M.
green
2 sentences2016In re R.M., 2015 ME 38, ¶ 7 , 114 A.3d 212 . 2016In re R.M., 2015 ME 38, ¶ 7 , 114 A.3d 212 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Michaela C.
green
2 sentences2014See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(ii); In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159, ¶¶ 17-23 , 809 A.2d 1245 . 2014See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(ii); In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159, ¶¶ 17-23 , 809 A.2d 1245 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2010State v. Barnes, 2004 ME 105, ¶ 5 , 854 A.2d 208, 209-10 . [¶ 10] The issue presented here is an assertion that, while the trial court applied the standard of proof in accordance with the then-governing statute, that statute was unconstitutional because it should have required at least a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof. 2010State v. Barnes, 2004 ME 105, ¶ 5 , 854 A.2d 208, 209-10 . [¶ 10] The issue presented here is an assertion that, while the trial court applied the standard of proof in accordance with the then-governing statute, that statute was unconstitutional because it should have required at least a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Heather G.
green
1 sentence2002Id. at ¶ 8, 805 A.2d at 251 . [¶4] Our opinion in Heather G. was not a requirement or even a suggestion that, in their fact-findings in termination of parental rights cases, the trial courts need to individually list all of the witnesses. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State Ex Rel. Barnes v. Behan
green
2 sentences1984Barnes v. Behan, 80 S.D. 370 , 124 N.W.2d 179 (1963), was invalidated on constitutional grounds by a federal district court, which substituted a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. 11 See Allen v. Radack, 426 F.Supp 1052. 1984Barnes v. Behan, 80 S.D. 370 , 124 N.W.2d 179 (1963), was invalidated on constitutional grounds by a federal district court, which substituted a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. 11 See Allen v. Radack, 426 F.Supp 1052. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1984The decision of the Montana Supreme Court adopting the reasonable doubt standard, see State v. Taylor, 158 Mont. 323 , 491 P.2d 877 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 978 , 92 S.Ct. 2428 , 32 L.Ed.2d 677 (1972), was effectively overruled by a change in the Montana Code. 1984The decision of the Montana Supreme Court adopting the reasonable doubt standard, see State v. Taylor, 158 Mont. 323 , 491 P.2d 877 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 978 , 92 S.Ct. 2428 , 32 L.Ed.2d 677 (1972), was effectively overruled by a change in the Montana Code. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Wayman Patterson v. Russell Lash, Warden
green
1 sentence1984The decision of the Montana Supreme Court adopting the reasonable doubt standard, see State v. Taylor, 158 Mont. 323 , 491 P.2d 877 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 978 , 92 S.Ct. 2428 , 32 L.Ed.2d 677 (1972), was effectively overruled by a change in the Montana Code. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
DeBorde v. Pinnock
green
1 sentence1984The decision of the Montana Supreme Court adopting the reasonable doubt standard, see State v. Taylor, 158 Mont. 323 , 491 P.2d 877 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 978 , 92 S.Ct. 2428 , 32 L.Ed.2d 677 (1972), was effectively overruled by a change in the Montana Code. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.
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.