clear and convincing standard in Rhode Island

2019Moreover, we have stated that the clear and convincing standard is "significant[,]" id. , and "requires that the fact-finder form a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In re Madlyn B. , 187 A.3d at 1118 (quoting In re Adner G. , 925 A.2d at 957 ).

2017“The clear and convincing standard of proof requires the trial justice to have a ‘clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Adner G., 925 A.2d 951, 957 (R.I. 2007)).

2017“The clear-and-convincing standard requires that the factfinder form a ‘clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts.’ ” Id, (quoting Parker v. Parker, 103 R.I. 435, 442 , 238 A.2d 57, 61 (1968)).

2017“The clear-and-convincing standard requires that the factfinder form a ‘clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts.’ ” Id, (quoting Parker v. Parker, 103 R.I. 435, 442 , 238 A.2d 57, 61 (1968)).

2017When this Court reviews an appeal from a decree of the Family Court, we must undertake an examination of “the record to determine whether legally competent evidence exists in it to support findings made by the trial justice.” In re Adner G., 925 A.2d at 957 (quoting In re Mackenzie C., 877 A.2d 674, 685 (R.I. 2005)).

2010This Court’s standard of review requires that “we examine the record to determine whether legally competent evidence exists in it to support findings made by the trial justice.” Id. (quoting In re Mackenzie C., 877 A.2d 674, 685 (R.I.2005)).

2024“It is well settled that the clear and convincing standard is ‘a higher standard of proof than that of a fair preponderance of the evidence but less than that required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” In re Sophia M., 204 A.3d 605, 609 (R.I. 2019) (quoting In re Emilee K., 153 A.3d 487, 497 (R.I. 2017)).

2020This Court has reiterated that “the clear and convincing standard is significant[,] and requires that the fact-finder form a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re Sophia M., 204 A.3d 605, 609 (R.I. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Luis v. Gaugler, 185 A.3d 497, 506 (R.I. 2018); see also Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 , 88 n.7 (R.I. 2011) (“Clear and convincing evidence is defined in a variety of ways; * * * a party must persuade the jury that the proposition is highly probable, or must produce in the mind of the factfinder a firm belie

2015Treasurer Touzin, 934 A.2d 799, 803 (R.I. 2007)).

2011"Although a plaintiff in a civil action normally must meet his burden by only a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff must overcome a higher clear and convincing standard to prove an easement." Ondis v. City of Woonsocket , 934 A.2d 799 , 803 (R.I. 2007) (citing Berberian , 104 R.I. at 589 , 247 A.2d at 510 -11 ).

2013Indeed, “[although a plaintiff in a civil action normally must meet his burden by only a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff must overcome a higher clear and convincing standard to prove an easement.” Id. (citing Berberian, 104 R.I. at 590 , 247 A.2d at 511 ); see also Foley v. Lyons, 85 R.I. 86, 90 , 125 A.2d 247, 249 (1956); Tefft v. Reynolds, 43 R.I. 538, 543 , 113 A. 787, 789 (1921). *600 Discussion Express Easement Section 14.2 of the declaration states, in pertinent part, that “the [d]eelarant will provide reasonable rights of way over and across the real estate withdrawn necess

2013Indeed, “[although a plaintiff in a civil action normally must meet his burden by only a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff must overcome a higher clear and convincing standard to prove an easement.” Id. (citing Berberian, 104 R.I. at 590 , 247 A.2d at 511 ); see also Foley v. Lyons, 85 R.I. 86, 90 , 125 A.2d 247, 249 (1956); Tefft v. Reynolds, 43 R.I. 538, 543 , 113 A. 787, 789 (1921). *600 Discussion Express Easement Section 14.2 of the declaration states, in pertinent part, that “the [d]eelarant will provide reasonable rights of way over and across the real estate withdrawn necess

2024“Nonetheless, it remains true that a trial justice’s ‘findings are entitled to great weight and will not be reversed on appeal unless the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence, or was otherwise clearly wrong.’” Id. (quoting In re Madlyn B., 187 A.3d 1105, 1118-19 (R.I. 2018)).

2019Moreover, we have stated that the clear and convincing standard is "significant[,]" id. , and "requires that the fact-finder form a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In re Madlyn B. , 187 A.3d at 1118 (quoting In re Adner G. , 925 A.2d at 957 ).

2024“It is well settled that the clear and convincing standard is ‘a higher standard of proof than that of a fair preponderance of the evidence but less than that required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” In re Sophia M., 204 A.3d 605, 609 (R.I. 2019) (quoting In re Emilee K., 153 A.3d 487, 497 (R.I. 2017)).

2024This Court has emphasized that “the clear and convincing standard is significant, * * * and requires that the fact-finder form a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts - 11 - in issue.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).

2020This Court has reiterated that “the clear and convincing standard is significant[,] and requires that the fact-finder form a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re Sophia M., 204 A.3d 605, 609 (R.I. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Luis v. Gaugler, 185 A.3d 497, 506 (R.I. 2018); see also Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 , 88 n.7 (R.I. 2011) (“Clear and convincing evidence is defined in a variety of ways; * * * a party must persuade the jury that the proposition is highly probable, or must produce in the mind of the factfinder a firm belie

2013As we held in Cahill, 11 A.3d at 93 , although such a manifestation does not automatically invalidate the plaintiffs’ claim, it is “poignantly relevant to the ultimate determination of claim of right and hostile possession during the statutory period.” The clear and convincing standard presents a high hurdle to a would-be adverse possessor; the evidence proffered in this case fails to meet that hurdle.

2018“The clear and convincing standard of proof requires the trial justice to have a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re Kurt H., 152 A.3d 408, 411 (R.I. 2017) (quoting In re Jermaine H., 9 A.3d 1227, 1231 (R.I. 2010)).

2018"The clear and convincing standard of proof requires the trial justice to have a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In re Kurt H. , 152 A.3d 408 , 411 (R.I. 2017) (quoting In re Jermaine H. , 9 A.3d 1227 , 1231 (R.I. 2010) ).

2013Indeed, “[although a plaintiff in a civil action normally must meet his burden by only a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff must overcome a higher clear and convincing standard to prove an easement.” Id. (citing Berberian, 104 R.I. at 590 , 247 A.2d at 511 ); see also Foley v. Lyons, 85 R.I. 86, 90 , 125 A.2d 247, 249 (1956); Tefft v. Reynolds, 43 R.I. 538, 543 , 113 A. 787, 789 (1921). *600 Discussion Express Easement Section 14.2 of the declaration states, in pertinent part, that “the [d]eelarant will provide reasonable rights of way over and across the real estate withdrawn necess

2013Indeed, “[although a plaintiff in a civil action normally must meet his burden by only a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff must overcome a higher clear and convincing standard to prove an easement.” Id. (citing Berberian, 104 R.I. at 590 , 247 A.2d at 511 ); see also Foley v. Lyons, 85 R.I. 86, 90 , 125 A.2d 247, 249 (1956); Tefft v. Reynolds, 43 R.I. 538, 543 , 113 A. 787, 789 (1921). *600 Discussion Express Easement Section 14.2 of the declaration states, in pertinent part, that “the [d]eelarant will provide reasonable rights of way over and across the real estate withdrawn necess

2013Indeed, “[although a plaintiff in a civil action normally must meet his burden by only a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff must overcome a higher clear and convincing standard to prove an easement.” Id. (citing Berberian, 104 R.I. at 590 , 247 A.2d at 511 ); see also Foley v. Lyons, 85 R.I. 86, 90 , 125 A.2d 247, 249 (1956); Tefft v. Reynolds, 43 R.I. 538, 543 , 113 A. 787, 789 (1921). *600 Discussion Express Easement Section 14.2 of the declaration states, in pertinent part, that “the [d]eelarant will provide reasonable rights of way over and across the real estate withdrawn necess

2013Indeed, “[although a plaintiff in a civil action normally must meet his burden by only a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiff must overcome a higher clear and convincing standard to prove an easement.” Id. (citing Berberian, 104 R.I. at 590 , 247 A.2d at 511 ); see also Foley v. Lyons, 85 R.I. 86, 90 , 125 A.2d 247, 249 (1956); Tefft v. Reynolds, 43 R.I. 538, 543 , 113 A. 787, 789 (1921). *600 Discussion Express Easement Section 14.2 of the declaration states, in pertinent part, that “the [d]eelarant will provide reasonable rights of way over and across the real estate withdrawn necess

2008See Tinney , 770 A.2d at 440 (applying this standard to a deed); C.f.

2006Tinney v. Tinney, 770 A.2d 420 , 440 (R.I. 2001).

2020This Court has reiterated that “the clear and convincing standard is significant[,] and requires that the fact-finder form a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re Sophia M., 204 A.3d 605, 609 (R.I. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Luis v. Gaugler, 185 A.3d 497, 506 (R.I. 2018); see also Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 , 88 n.7 (R.I. 2011) (“Clear and convincing evidence is defined in a variety of ways; * * * a party must persuade the jury that the proposition is highly probable, or must produce in the mind of the factfinder a firm belie

2018Further, "to establish a common-law marriage, we have adopted the clear and convincing standard of proof." Smith v. Smith , 966 A.2d 109 , 114 (R.I. 2009).

2018In consideration of the modern fluidity of family units, we again call upon the General Assembly to determine this doctrine's place in Rhode Island's jurisprudence. 8 However, because common-law marriage remains the law in Rhode Island, to prove it "we have adopted the clear and convincing standard of proof." 9 Smith , 966 A.2d at 114 .

2018“The clear and convincing standard of proof requires the trial justice to have a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re Kurt H., 152 A.3d 408, 411 (R.I. 2017) (quoting In re Jermaine H., 9 A.3d 1227, 1231 (R.I. 2010)).

2018"The clear and convincing standard of proof requires the trial justice to have a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In re Kurt H. , 152 A.3d 408 , 411 (R.I. 2017) (quoting In re Jermaine H. , 9 A.3d 1227 , 1231 (R.I. 2010) ).

2015Analysis “Although a plaintiff in a civil action is ordinarily required to prove his or her case by only a preponderance of the evidence, a plaintiff seeking to prove an easement must instead ‘overcome a higher clear and convincing standard[.]’” Pelletier v. Laureanno, 46 A.3d 28, 35 (R.I. 2012) (quoting Ondis v. City of Woonsocket ex rel.

2010Id. at 95.

2010See Mississippi State Bd. of Nursing v. Wilson , 624 So.2d 485 (Miss. 1993); Davis v. Wright , 503 N.W.2d 814 , 816 (Neb. 1993); Devous v. Wyoming State Bd. of Medical Examiners , 845 P.2d 408 , 410 (Wyo. 1993); Ettinger v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance , 135 Cal.App.3d 853 , 857 (Cal.App.2.Dist. 1982).

2009See id.