clear and convincing standard in South Carolina

2025In fact, the record shows Appellant tried to avoid the spotlight and the controversy."); Stokes, 441 S.C. at 577-78, 895 S.E.2d at 695 (Ct. App. 2023) ("When the element of constitutional actual malice is required to show fault, as in cases involving a plaintiff who is a public official, 'the appropriate standard at the summary judgment phase on [that] issue . . . is the clear and convincing standard.'" (quoting George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 454 , 548 S.E.2d 868, 875 (2001) (alterations in original))); McClain v. Arnold, 275 S.C. 282, 284 , 270 S.E.2d 124, 125 (1980) ("Unless the [circuit] co

2025In fact, the record shows Appellant tried to avoid the spotlight and the controversy."); Stokes, 441 S.C. at 577-78, 895 S.E.2d at 695 (Ct. App. 2023) ("When the element of constitutional actual malice is required to show fault, as in cases involving a plaintiff who is a public official, 'the appropriate standard at the summary judgment phase on [that] issue . . . is the clear and convincing standard.'" (quoting George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 454 , 548 S.E.2d 868, 875 (2001) (alterations in original))); McClain v. Arnold, 275 S.C. 282, 284 , 270 S.E.2d 124, 125 (1980) ("Unless the [circuit] co

2019See 410 S.C. at 493 , 765 S.E.2d at 142 (Kittredge, J., concurring) (stating "the burden of proof should be the clear and convincing standard"); 410 S.C. at 494 , 765 S.E.2d at 142 (Pleicones, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (stating "I would require a beneficiary *274 asserting such a legal malpractice claim to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney breached the duty," joined by Toal, C.J.).

2019See 410 S.C. at 493 , 765 S.E.2d at 142 (Kittredge, J., concurring) (stating "the burden of proof should be the clear and convincing standard"); 410 S.C. at 494 , 765 S.E.2d at 142 (Pleicones, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (stating "I would require a beneficiary *274 asserting such a legal malpractice claim to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney breached the duty," joined by Toal, C.J.).

2025In fact, the record shows Appellant tried to avoid the spotlight and the controversy."); Stokes, 441 S.C. at 577-78, 895 S.E.2d at 695 (Ct. App. 2023) ("When the element of constitutional actual malice is required to show fault, as in cases involving a plaintiff who is a public official, 'the appropriate standard at the summary judgment phase on [that] issue . . . is the clear and convincing standard.'" (quoting George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 454 , 548 S.E.2d 868, 875 (2001) (alterations in original))); McClain v. Arnold, 275 S.C. 282, 284 , 270 S.E.2d 124, 125 (1980) ("Unless the [circuit] co

2025In fact, the record shows Appellant tried to avoid the spotlight and the controversy."); Stokes, 441 S.C. at 577-78, 895 S.E.2d at 695 (Ct. App. 2023) ("When the element of constitutional actual malice is required to show fault, as in cases involving a plaintiff who is a public official, 'the appropriate standard at the summary judgment phase on [that] issue . . . is the clear and convincing standard.'" (quoting George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 454 , 548 S.E.2d 868, 875 (2001) (alterations in original))); McClain v. Arnold, 275 S.C. 282, 284 , 270 S.E.2d 124, 125 (1980) ("Unless the [circuit] co

2025In fact, the record shows Appellant tried to avoid the spotlight and the controversy."); Stokes, 441 S.C. at 577-78, 895 S.E.2d at 695 (Ct. App. 2023) ("When the element of constitutional actual malice is required to show fault, as in cases involving a plaintiff who is a public official, 'the appropriate standard at the summary judgment phase on [that] issue . . . is the clear and convincing standard.'" (quoting George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 454 , 548 S.E.2d 868, 875 (2001) (alterations in original))); McClain v. Arnold, 275 S.C. 282, 284 , 270 S.E.2d 124, 125 (1980) ("Unless the [circuit] co

2025In fact, the record shows Appellant tried to avoid the spotlight and the controversy."); Stokes, 441 S.C. at 577-78, 895 S.E.2d at 695 (Ct. App. 2023) ("When the element of constitutional actual malice is required to show fault, as in cases involving a plaintiff who is a public official, 'the appropriate standard at the summary judgment phase on [that] issue . . . is the clear and convincing standard.'" (quoting George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 454 , 548 S.E.2d 868, 875 (2001) (alterations in original))); McClain v. Arnold, 275 S.C. 282, 284 , 270 S.E.2d 124, 125 (1980) ("Unless the [circuit] co

2016Understanding the “historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,” the Santosky court explained the clear and convincing standard of proof was required “when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both ‘particularly important’ and ‘more substantial than mere loss of money.’ ” 455 U.S. at 753, 756 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979)).

2016Understanding the “historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,” the Santosky court explained the clear and convincing standard of proof was required “when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both ‘particularly important’ and ‘more substantial than mere loss of money.’ ” 455 U.S. at 753, 756 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979)).

2026See State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) ("The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and [its] decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion."); Rule 404(b), SCRE (explaining that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith" except when the evidence is relevant to prove "motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent"); State v. Cutro, 365

2026See State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) ("The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and [its] decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion."); Rule 404(b), SCRE (explaining that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith" except when the evidence is relevant to prove "motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent"); State v. Cutro, 365

2026See State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) ("The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and [its] decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion."); Rule 404(b), SCRE (explaining that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith" except when the evidence is relevant to prove "motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent"); State v. Cutro, 365

2026See State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) ("The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and [its] decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion."); Rule 404(b), SCRE (explaining that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith" except when the evidence is relevant to prove "motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent"); State v. Cutro, 365

2026See State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) ("The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and [its] decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion."); Rule 404(b), SCRE (explaining that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith" except when the evidence is relevant to prove "motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent"); State v. Cutro, 365

2026See State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 154 , 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009) ("The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and [its] decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion."); Rule 404(b), SCRE (explaining that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith" except when the evidence is relevant to prove "motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent"); State v. Cutro, 365

2025Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968) (emphasis in original)); id. ("There must be evidence the defendant had a 'high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity.'" (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964))). 4.

2025Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968) (emphasis in original)); id. ("There must be evidence the defendant had a 'high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity.'" (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964))). 4.

2025Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968) (emphasis in original)); id. ("There must be evidence the defendant had a 'high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity.'" (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964))). 4.

2025Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964))); George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 454 , 548 S.E.2d 868, 875 (2001) ("[T]he appropriate standard at the summary judgment phase on the issue of constitutional actual malice is the clear and convincing standard."); Elder, 341 S.C. 108, 113-14 , 533 S.E.2d 899, 901-02 (stating that a finding of actual malice requires clear and convincing evidence showing the statement was made "with either knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard for its truth"); id. at 114 , 533 S.E.2d at 902 ("Failure to investigate before publishing, even when a reason

2024See State v. Covington, 343 S.C. 157, 164 , 539 S.E.2d 67, 70 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding evidence of juror misconduct is evaluated under a clear and convincing standard); State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 24 , 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) ("Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established.

2024See State v. Covington, 343 S.C. 157, 164 , 539 S.E.2d 67, 70 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding evidence of juror misconduct is evaluated under a clear and convincing standard); State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 24 , 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) ("Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established.

2024Such proof is intermediate, more than a mere preponderance but less than is required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not mean clear and unequivocal."); Covington, 343 S.C. at 164 , 539 S.E.2d at 70 (finding that a clear and convincing standard need not be applied when juror concealment cannot first be proven under the lesser preponderance of the evidence standard); Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S.C. 538, 545 , 22 S.E. 743, 744-45 (1895) (finding to establish a defense under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a party must convince the trial court the grounds for its defense are

2024Such proof is intermediate, more than a mere preponderance but less than is required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not mean clear and unequivocal."); Covington, 343 S.C. at 164 , 539 S.E.2d at 70 (finding that a clear and convincing standard need not be applied when juror concealment cannot first be proven under the lesser preponderance of the evidence standard); Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S.C. 538, 545 , 22 S.E. 743, 744-45 (1895) (finding to establish a defense under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a party must convince the trial court the grounds for its defense are

2024See State v. Covington, 343 S.C. 157, 164 , 539 S.E.2d 67, 70 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding evidence of juror misconduct is evaluated under a clear and convincing standard); State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 24 , 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) ("Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established.

2024See State v. Covington, 343 S.C. 157, 164 , 539 S.E.2d 67, 70 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding evidence of juror misconduct is evaluated under a clear and convincing standard); State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 24 , 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) ("Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established.

2024We disagree. "[T]he State holds presumptive title to land below the high water mark." Query v. Burgess, 371 S.C. 407, 410 , 639 S.E.2d 455, 456 (Ct. App. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting McQueen v. S.C.

2024We disagree. "[T]he State holds presumptive title to land below the high water mark." Query v. Burgess, 371 S.C. 407, 410 , 639 S.E.2d 455, 456 (Ct. App. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting McQueen v. S.C.

2018See Ardis v. Cox , 314 S.C. 512 , 515, 431 S.E.2d 267 , 269 (Ct. App. 1993) ("Fraud is not presumed, but must be shown by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence."); Gordon v. Lancaster , 419 S.C. 48 , 59, 795 S.E.2d 857 , 863 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The evidentiary standard governing fraudulent conveyance claims brought under the Statute of *421 Elizabeth is the clear and convincing standard.").

2018See Ardis v. Cox , 314 S.C. 512 , 515, 431 S.E.2d 267 , 269 (Ct. App. 1993) ("Fraud is not presumed, but must be shown by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence."); Gordon v. Lancaster , 419 S.C. 48 , 59, 795 S.E.2d 857 , 863 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The evidentiary standard governing fraudulent conveyance claims brought under the Statute of *421 Elizabeth is the clear and convincing standard.").

2018See Ardis v. Cox , 314 S.C. 512 , 515, 431 S.E.2d 267 , 269 (Ct. App. 1993) ("Fraud is not presumed, but must be shown by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence."); Gordon v. Lancaster , 419 S.C. 48 , 59, 795 S.E.2d 857 , 863 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The evidentiary standard governing fraudulent conveyance claims brought under the Statute of *421 Elizabeth is the clear and convincing standard.").

2018See Ardis v. Cox , 314 S.C. 512 , 515, 431 S.E.2d 267 , 269 (Ct. App. 1993) ("Fraud is not presumed, but must be shown by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence."); Gordon v. Lancaster , 419 S.C. 48 , 59, 795 S.E.2d 857 , 863 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The evidentiary standard governing fraudulent conveyance claims brought under the Statute of *421 Elizabeth is the clear and convincing standard.").

2018When a "claim requires proof by clear and convincing evidence . . . more than a mere scintilla of evidence must be presented to withstand a motion for summary judgment." Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 124-25 , 708 S.E.2d 766, 770 (2011).

2018When a "claim requires proof by clear and convincing evidence . . . more than a mere scintilla of evidence must be presented to withstand a motion for summary judgment." Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 124-25 , 708 S.E.2d 766, 770 (2011).

2016Oskin v. Johnson, 400 S.C. 390, 396 , 735 S.E.2d 459, 463 (2012).

2016Oskin v. Johnson, 400 S.C. 390, 396 , 735 S.E.2d 459, 463 (2012).

2013See Duncan v. Ford Motor Co., 385 S.C. 119, 138 , 682 S.E.2d 877, 886 (Ct.App.2009) (“Clear and convincing evidence is: that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established.

2013See Duncan v. Ford Motor Co., 385 S.C. 119, 138 , 682 S.E.2d 877, 886 (Ct.App.2009) (“Clear and convincing evidence is: that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established.

2009See Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 353 S.C. 208 , 578 S.E.2d 329 (2003) (applying the unmistakable and convincing evidence standard in an undue influence case); Whaley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 362 S.C. 456 , 609 S.E.2d 286 (2005) (applying the federal heightened standard in a Federal Employers Liability Act suit); and Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488 , 567 S.E.2d 857 (2002) (applying the clear and convincing standard of proof in a libel action brought by a public figure). 3 .

2009See Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 353 S.C. 208 , 578 S.E.2d 329 (2003) (applying the unmistakable and convincing evidence standard in an undue influence case); Whaley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 362 S.C. 456 , 609 S.E.2d 286 (2005) (applying the federal heightened standard in a Federal Employers Liability Act suit); and Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488 , 567 S.E.2d 857 (2002) (applying the clear and convincing standard of proof in a libel action brought by a public figure). 3 .

2008This argument was not presented to the trial judge and is not preserved for our review. “Arguments not raised or ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review.” State v. Carlson , 363 S.C. 586, 597 , 611 S.E.2d 283, 288 (Ct. App. 2005); State v. Wise , 359 S.C. 14 , 596 S.E.2d 475 (2004); State v. Perez , 334 S.C. 563 , 514 S.E.2d 754 (1999).

2008This argument was not presented to the trial judge and is not preserved for our review. “Arguments not raised or ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review.” State v. Carlson , 363 S.C. 586, 597 , 611 S.E.2d 283, 288 (Ct. App. 2005); State v. Wise , 359 S.C. 14 , 596 S.E.2d 475 (2004); State v. Perez , 334 S.C. 563 , 514 S.E.2d 754 (1999).