Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc.green2 sentences2026“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that “’should fully convince.’” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (2009) (citation omitted). 2026“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that “’should fully convince.’” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (2009) (citation omitted). | 7 | 9 |
Williams v. Blue Ridge Building & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences2020Cooper v. Mitchell Bros.’ Santa Ana Theater, 454 U.S. 90, 93 (1981) (per curiam) (footnote omitted) (“Three standards of proof are generally recognized, ranging from the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard employed in most civil cases, to the ‘clear and convincing’ standard reserved to protect particularly important interests in a limited number of civil cases, to the requirement that guilt be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in a criminal prosecution.” (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 423–44 (1979))); Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (20 2020Cooper v. Mitchell Bros.’ Santa Ana Theater, 454 U.S. 90, 93 (1981) (per curiam) (footnote omitted) (“Three standards of proof are generally recognized, ranging from the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard employed in most civil cases, to the ‘clear and convincing’ standard reserved to protect particularly important interests in a limited number of civil cases, to the requirement that guilt be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in a criminal prosecution.” (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 423–44 (1979))); Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (20 | 4 | 6 |
In Re the Will of McCauleygreen2 sentences2024“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that ‘should fully convince.’” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (2009) (quoting In re Will of McCauley, 356 N.C. 91, 101 , 565 S.E.2d 88, 95 (2002)). 2024“The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that ‘should fully convince.’” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (2009) (quoting In re Will of McCauley, 356 N.C. 91, 101 , 565 S.E.2d 88, 95 (2002)). | 4 | 4 |
Bennett v. Hawksgreen2 sentences2019"Absent an indication that the trial court applied the clear and convincing standard in this case, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand this case for findings of fact consistent therewith." Bennett , 170 N.C. 2019App. at 429 , 613 S.E.2d at 42 ; see also David N. , 359 N.C. at 307 , 608 S.E.2d at 754 (reversing and remanding for finding consistent *420 with the clear and convincing standard, where the trial court "failed to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard as set forth in Adams in making th[e] determination" that the defendant's conduct was inconsistent with a natural parent's constitutionally protected interest). | 2 | 4 |
In Re AKgreen2 sentences2008The Court carefully limited its holding in reversing the adjudication of neglect: "Consequently, where the trial court did not accept any formal evidence in addition to its consideration of the prior court orders concerning C.A.K., and the only order concerning C.A.K. that contained findings by the clear and convincing standard of proof was from a hearing occurring many months earlier, the trial court could not, on this record, conclude that `the minor child would be at substantial risk of neglect if placed in the custody of the . . . parents at this time.'" Id. at 732 , 637 S.E.2d at 230 (emp 2008The Court carefully limited its holding in reversing the adjudication of neglect: "Consequently, where the trial court did not accept any formal evidence in addition to its consideration of the prior court orders concerning C.A.K., and the only order concerning C.A.K. that contained findings by the clear and convincing standard of proof was from a hearing occurring many months earlier, the trial court could not, on this record, conclude that `the minor child would be at substantial risk of neglect if placed in the custody of the . . . parents at this time.'" Id. at 732 , 637 S.E.2d at 230 (emp | 2 | 4 |
California Ex Rel. Cooper v. Mitchell Brothers' Santa Ana Theatergreen2 sentences2020Cooper v. Mitchell Bros.’ Santa Ana Theater, 454 U.S. 90, 93 (1981) (per curiam) (footnote omitted) (“Three standards of proof are generally recognized, ranging from the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard employed in most civil cases, to the ‘clear and convincing’ standard reserved to protect particularly important interests in a limited number of civil cases, to the requirement that guilt be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in a criminal prosecution.” (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 423–44 (1979))); Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (20 2020Cooper v. Mitchell Bros.’ Santa Ana Theater, 454 U.S. 90, 93 (1981) (per curiam) (footnote omitted) (“Three standards of proof are generally recognized, ranging from the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard employed in most civil cases, to the ‘clear and convincing’ standard reserved to protect particularly important interests in a limited number of civil cases, to the requirement that guilt be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in a criminal prosecution.” (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 423–44 (1979))); Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (20 | 2 | 2 |
Adams v. Tessenergreen2 sentences2026Adams v. Tessener, 354 N.C. 57, 63 (2001) (determining whether a parent has acted inconsistent with her constitutionally protected status must be reviewed under a clear, cogent, and convincing standard); Bennett v. Hawks, 170 N.C. 2006See, e.g., Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397 , 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994) 3 ; David N. v. Jason N., 359 N.C. 303 , 608 S.E.2d 751 (2005); Adams v. Tessener, 354 N.C. 57 , 550 S.E.2d 499 (2001); Bennett v. Hawks, 170 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
David N. v. Jason N.green2 sentences2019App. at 429 , 613 S.E.2d at 42 ; see also David N. , 359 N.C. at 307 , 608 S.E.2d at 754 (reversing and remanding for finding consistent *420 with the clear and convincing standard, where the trial court "failed to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard as set forth in Adams in making th[e] determination" that the defendant's conduct was inconsistent with a natural parent's constitutionally protected interest). 2019App. at 429 , 613 S.E.2d at 42 ; see also David N. , 359 N.C. at 307 , 608 S.E.2d at 754 (reversing and remanding for finding consistent *420 with the clear and convincing standard, where the trial court "failed to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard as set forth in Adams in making th[e] determination" that the defendant's conduct was inconsistent with a natural parent's constitutionally protected interest). | 1 | 2 |
Schenk v. HNA Holdings, Inc.green2 sentences2008Id. at 560-61 , 613 S.E.2d at 507-08 . 2005The clear and convincing standard is greater than the general preponderance of the evidence standard—it requires evidence “which should ‘fully convince.’” Schenk v. HNA Holdings, Inc., 613 S.E.2d 503, 508 (2005) (quoting In re Smith, 146 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Bushgreen1 sentence2025United States v. Bush, 585 F.3d 806, 814 (4th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases as to the clear and convincing standard for Sell hearings). | 1 | 1 |
Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc.green2 sentences2008NOTES [1] Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc., 179 N.C.App. 127, 132 , 632 S.E.2d 800, 803 (2006); N.C. 2008NOTES [1] Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc., 179 N.C.App. 127, 132 , 632 S.E.2d 800, 803 (2006); N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Petersen v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397 , 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994) 3 ; David N. v. Jason N., 359 N.C. 303 , 608 S.E.2d 751 (2005); Adams v. Tessener, 354 N.C. 57 , 550 S.E.2d 499 (2001); Bennett v. Hawks, 170 N.C. 2006See, e.g., Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397 , 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994) 3 ; David N. v. Jason N., 359 N.C. 303 , 608 S.E.2d 751 (2005); Adams v. Tessener, 354 N.C. 57 , 550 S.E.2d 499 (2001); Bennett v. Hawks, 170 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Howardgreen2 sentences2005Because the trial court’s order is unclear about the standard of proof, we reverse and remand the trial court’s order. “[N]atural parents have a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship, custody, care, and control of their children.” Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 72 , 484 S.E.2d 528, 530 (1997). 2005Because the trial court’s order is unclear about the standard of proof, we reverse and remand the trial court’s order. “[N]atural parents have a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship, custody, care, and control of their children.” Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 72 , 484 S.E.2d 528, 530 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Smithgreen2 sentences2005The clear and convincing standard is greater than the general preponderance of the evidence standard—it requires evidence “which should ‘fully convince.’” Schenk v. HNA Holdings, Inc., 613 S.E.2d 503, 508 (2005) (quoting In re Smith, 146 N.C. 2005App. 302, 204 , 552 S.E.2d 184, 184 (2001)). {79} Here, the jury found that the evidence of fraud on the part of Andre Boisvert warranted an award of punitive damages in this case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Slater v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2021This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 (2009) (cleaned up) (first quoting In re Will of McCauley, 356 N.C. 91, 101 (2002); then quoting Williams v. Blue Ridge Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 207 N.C. 362 , 363–64 (1934)), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 (2011). ¶ 20 The trial court’s legal conclusion that a parent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent is reviewed de novo 2021This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 (2009) (cleaned up) (first quoting In re Will of McCauley, 356 N.C. 91, 101 (2002); then quoting Williams v. Blue Ridge Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 207 N.C. 362 , 363–64 (1934)), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 (2011). ¶ 20 The trial court’s legal conclusion that a parent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent is reviewed de novo | 4 | 2016–2021 |
In re T.H.T.
green
2 sentences2022App. 30 , 36 (2020)). “‘If such evidence exists, the findings of the trial court are binding on appeal, even if the evidence would support a finding to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting In re T.H.T., 185 N.C. 2022App. 30 , 36 (2020)). “‘If such evidence exists, the findings of the trial court are binding on appeal, even if the evidence would support a finding to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting In re T.H.T., 185 N.C. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
In re T.H.T.
green
2 sentences2022App. 337, 343 (2007) (cleaned up in original), aff’d in part, modified in part, 362 N.C. 446 (2008)). “‘The clear and convincing standard is greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases.’” Id. (quoting In re K.L., 272 N.C. 2022App. 337, 343 (2007) (cleaned up in original), aff’d in part, modified in part, 362 N.C. 446 (2008)). “‘The clear and convincing standard is greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases.’” Id. (quoting In re K.L., 272 N.C. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Addington v. Texas
green
2 sentences2020Cooper v. Mitchell Bros.’ Santa Ana Theater, 454 U.S. 90, 93 (1981) (per curiam) (footnote omitted) (“Three standards of proof are generally recognized, ranging from the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard employed in most civil cases, to the ‘clear and convincing’ standard reserved to protect particularly important interests in a limited number of civil cases, to the requirement that guilt be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in a criminal prosecution.” (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 423–44 (1979))); Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (20 2020Cooper v. Mitchell Bros.’ Santa Ana Theater, 454 U.S. 90, 93 (1981) (per curiam) (footnote omitted) (“Three standards of proof are generally recognized, ranging from the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard employed in most civil cases, to the ‘clear and convincing’ standard reserved to protect particularly important interests in a limited number of civil cases, to the requirement that guilt be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in a criminal prosecution.” (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 423–44 (1979))); Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 , 693 S.E.2d 640, 643 (20 | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Owenby v. Young
green
2 sentences2020As our Supreme Court held in Owenby, “the trial court may employ the ‘best interest of the child’ test only when the movant first shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the natural parent has forfeited [] her constitutionally protected status.” Owenby, 357 N.C. at 148 , 579 S.E.2d at 268 . 2020As our Supreme Court held in Owenby, “the trial court may employ the ‘best interest of the child’ test only when the movant first shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the natural parent has forfeited [] her constitutionally protected status.” Owenby, 357 N.C. at 148 , 579 S.E.2d at 268 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters." In re A.C. , --- N.C. at ----, 786 S.E.2d at 734 (citing Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc., 363 N.C. 715 , 721, 693 S.E.2d 640 , 643 (2009), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 , 131 S.Ct. 2456 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1211 (2011) ). 2016This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters." Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc., 363 N.C. 715 , 721, 693 S.E.2d 640 , 643 (2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 , 131 S.Ct. 2456 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1211 (2011). | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Chien v. Skystar Bio Pharmaceutical Co.
green
2 sentences2017This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters." In re A.C. , --- N.C. at ----, 786 S.E.2d at 734 (citing Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc., 363 N.C. 715 , 721, 693 S.E.2d 640 , 643 (2009), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 , 131 S.Ct. 2456 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1211 (2011) ). 2016This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters." Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc., 363 N.C. 715 , 721, 693 S.E.2d 640 , 643 (2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 , 131 S.Ct. 2456 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1211 (2011). | 2 | 2016–2017 |
In re: K.L. & R.E.
green
1 sentence2025This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” In re K.L., 254 N.C. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re: A.C.
green
1 sentence2017This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters." In re A.C. , --- N.C. at ----, 786 S.E.2d at 734 (citing Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc., 363 N.C. 715 , 721, 693 S.E.2d 640 , 643 (2009), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 , 131 S.Ct. 2456 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1211 (2011) ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Spering v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence1987Spering v. Sullivan, 361 F. Supp. 282 (D. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.