clear and convincing evidence standard in Washington

24 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 6 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington 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.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Nexus v. Swiftgreen minnctapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See Nexus v. Swift, 785 N.W.2d 771, 781 (Minn. App. 2010) (“Clear and convincing evidence ‘requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This standard is met when the matter sought to be proved is ‘highly probable.’ ” (quoting Weber v. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 1978); State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998))). ¶83 In Nexus , the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the clear and convincing evidence standard in Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute. 785 N.W.2d at 780-82 . 2014See Nexus v. Swift, 785 N.W.2d 771, 781 (Minn. App. 2010) (“Clear and convincing evidence ‘requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This standard is met when the matter sought to be proved is ‘highly probable.’ ” (quoting Weber v. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 1978); State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998))). ¶83 In Nexus , the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the clear and convincing evidence standard in Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute. 785 N.W.2d at 780-82 .	2	2
State v. Kennedygreen minn · 1998 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See Nexus v. Swift, 785 N.W.2d 771, 781 (Minn. App. 2010) (“Clear and convincing evidence ‘requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This standard is met when the matter sought to be proved is ‘highly probable.’ ” (quoting Weber v. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 1978); State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998))). ¶83 In Nexus , the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the clear and convincing evidence standard in Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute. 785 N.W.2d at 780-82 . 2014See Nexus v. Swift, 785 N.W.2d 771, 781 (Minn. App. 2010) (“Clear and convincing evidence ‘requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This standard is met when the matter sought to be proved is ‘highly probable.’ ” (quoting Weber v. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 1978); State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998))). ¶83 In Nexus , the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the clear and convincing evidence standard in Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute. 785 N.W.2d at 780-82 .	2	2
Weber Ex Rel. Weber v. Andersongreen minn · 1978 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See Nexus v. Swift, 785 N.W.2d 771, 781 (Minn. App. 2010) (“Clear and convincing evidence ‘requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This standard is met when the matter sought to be proved is ‘highly probable.’ ” (quoting Weber v. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 1978); State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998))). ¶83 In Nexus , the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the clear and convincing evidence standard in Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute. 785 N.W.2d at 780-82 . 2014See Nexus v. Swift, 785 N.W.2d 771, 781 (Minn. App. 2010) (“Clear and convincing evidence ‘requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ This standard is met when the matter sought to be proved is ‘highly probable.’ ” (quoting Weber v. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 1978); State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998))). ¶83 In Nexus , the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the clear and convincing evidence standard in Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute. 785 N.W.2d at 780-82 .	2	2
Margoles v. Hubbartgreen wash · 1988 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1996–2013 2 sentences 2013See Margoles, 111 Wn.2d at 200 . 1996Amicus curiae Allied Daily Newspapers' contention that Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wash.2d 473 , 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 2942 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1339 (1982) and Margoles v. Hubbart, 111 Wash.2d 195 , 760 P.2d 324 (1988), require a different result is misplaced.	1	3
David Harrison v. Scott Kernangreen ca9 · 2020 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021RCW 9.94A.535(1).” Br. of Appellant at 24 (emphasis added). 15 No. 53841-5-II Conversely, in Harrison v. Kernan, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that imprisoned men and women inmates of the same security classification (based on a challenged regulation) were similarly situated for purposes of equal protection. 971 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020).	1	1
Nguyen v. Department of Healthgreen wash · 2001 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021Since we decline to suppress the outdoor kennel evidence, we do not reach this claim. 10 No. 80344-1-I/11 evidence standard instead of a clear and convincing evidence standard. 144 Wn.2d 516, 534 , 29 P.3d 689 (2001). 2021Norton says that under Nguyen, the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to veterinary disciplinary proceedings. 144 Wn.2d at 534 (holding that the burden of proof against medical practitioners in disciplinary proceedings is clear and convincing evidence).	1	1
Douglas Northwest, Inc. v. Bill O'Brien & Sons Construction, Inc.green washctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Douglas Nw., 64 Wn.	1	1
Nims v. Wa. Bd. of Registrationgreen washctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006To the contrary, Steadman was decided on statutory grounds wherein "[p]etitioner makes no claim that the Federal Constitution requires application of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard." Steadman, 450 U.S. at 97 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. 999 . [7] Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . [8] We, however, deny Ms. Ongom's request for reasonable attorney fees under Washington's equal access to justice act, RCW 4.84.350(1), because we find the agency action was substantially justified in light of inconsistent decisions from the Court of Appeals: compare Nims, 113 Wash.App. 499 , 53 P.3d 52 with Eid	1	1
Eidson v. State, Dept. of Licensinggreen washctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006To the contrary, Steadman was decided on statutory grounds wherein "[p]etitioner makes no claim that the Federal Constitution requires application of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard." Steadman, 450 U.S. at 97 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. 999 . [7] Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . [8] We, however, deny Ms. Ongom's request for reasonable attorney fees under Washington's equal access to justice act, RCW 4.84.350(1), because we find the agency action was substantially justified in light of inconsistent decisions from the Court of Appeals: compare Nims, 113 Wash.App. 499 , 53 P.3d 52 with Eid	1	1
Eidson v. Department of Licensinggreen washctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006To the contrary, Steadman was decided on statutory grounds wherein "[p]etitioner makes no claim that the Federal Constitution requires application of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard." Steadman, 450 U.S. at 97 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. 999 . [7] Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . [8] We, however, deny Ms. Ongom's request for reasonable attorney fees under Washington's equal access to justice act, RCW 4.84.350(1), because we find the agency action was substantially justified in light of inconsistent decisions from the Court of Appeals: compare Nims, 113 Wash.App. 499 , 53 P.3d 52 with Eid	1	1
Nims v. Board of Registration for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyorsgreen washctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006To the contrary, Steadman was decided on statutory grounds wherein "[p]etitioner makes no claim that the Federal Constitution requires application of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard." Steadman, 450 U.S. at 97 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. 999 . [7] Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . [8] We, however, deny Ms. Ongom's request for reasonable attorney fees under Washington's equal access to justice act, RCW 4.84.350(1), because we find the agency action was substantially justified in light of inconsistent decisions from the Court of Appeals: compare Nims, 113 Wash.App. 499 , 53 P.3d 52 with Eid	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (21)

Case	Cited	Years
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 1989Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255-56 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986); Chase v. Daily Record, Inc., 83 Wn.2d 37, 43 , 515 P.2d 154 (1973). [2] The plaintiff responding to a motion for summary judgment in a defamation case must show that the jury could decide in his favor while applying the clear and convincing evidence standard. 1989Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255-56 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986); Chase v. Daily Record, Inc., 83 Wn.2d 37, 43 , 515 P.2d 154 (1973). [2] The plaintiff responding to a motion for summary judgment in a defamation case must show that the jury could decide in his favor while applying the clear and convincing evidence standard.	4	1986–1996
Mathews v. Eldridge green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 2026Id. (citations omitted) (quoting record). 1 The current version of the statute imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard when the trial court decides not to impose limitations in spite of finding willful abandonment, physical or emotional abuse, or domestic violence. 2006To the contrary, Steadman was decided on statutory grounds wherein "[p]etitioner makes no claim that the Federal Constitution requires application of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard." Steadman, 450 U.S. at 97 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. 999 . [7] Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . [8] We, however, deny Ms. Ongom's request for reasonable attorney fees under Washington's equal access to justice act, RCW 4.84.350(1), because we find the agency action was substantially justified in light of inconsistent decisions from the Court of Appeals: compare Nims, 113 Wash.App. 499 , 53 P.3d 52 with Eid	3	2006–2026
Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC green washctapp · 2014 2 sentences 2015Dillon, 179 Wn. 2015Dillon, 179 Wn.	3	2015–2015
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 2006To the contrary, Steadman was decided on statutory grounds wherein "[p]etitioner makes no claim that the Federal Constitution requires application of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard." Steadman, 450 U.S. at 97 n. 15, 101 S.Ct. 999 . [7] Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347 , 96 S.Ct. 893 . [8] We, however, deny Ms. Ongom's request for reasonable attorney fees under Washington's equal access to justice act, RCW 4.84.350(1), because we find the agency action was substantially justified in light of inconsistent decisions from the Court of Appeals: compare Nims, 113 Wash.App. 499 , 53 P.3d 52 with Eid 2006To the contrary, Steadman was decided on statutory grounds wherein “[p]etitioner makes no claim that the Federal Constitution requires application of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.” Steadman, 450 U.S. at 97 n.15.	2	2006–2006
Mark v. Seattle Times green wash · 1981 2 sentences 1996Amicus curiae Allied Daily Newspapers' contention that Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wash.2d 473 , 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 2942 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1339 (1982) and Margoles v. Hubbart, 111 Wash.2d 195 , 760 P.2d 324 (1988), require a different result is misplaced. 1996Amicus curiae Allied Daily Newspapers' contention that Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wash.2d 473 , 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 2942 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1339 (1982) and Margoles v. Hubbart, 111 Wash.2d 195 , 760 P.2d 324 (1988), require a different result is misplaced.	2	1996–1996
Slayton v. Oklahoma green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1996Amicus curiae Allied Daily Newspapers' contention that Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wash.2d 473 , 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 2942 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1339 (1982) and Margoles v. Hubbart, 111 Wash.2d 195 , 760 P.2d 324 (1988), require a different result is misplaced. 1996Amicus curiae Allied Daily Newspapers’ contention that Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wn.2d 473 , 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 (1982) and Margoles v. Hubbart, 111 Wn.2d 195 , 760 P.2d 324 (1988), require a different result is misplaced.	2	1996–1996
Damian Schwarz v. Susan M. Schwarz green washctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2025In re Marriage of Schwartz, 192 Wn.	1	2025–2025
Borghi v. Gilroy green wash · 2009 1 sentence 2024Id. at 485 n.4.	1	2024–2024
In re the Detention of Brown neutral washctapp · 2010 1 sentence 2024Id. at 122 .	1	2024–2024
Ongom v. Dept. of Health red wash · 2006 1 sentence 2021In Ongom v. Department of Health, our Supreme Court extended Nguyen to hold that the burden of proof in all professional disciplinary proceedings is clear and convincing evidence. 159 Wn.2d 132 , 142–43, 148 P.3d 1029 (2006).	1	2021–2021
Ongom v. Department of Health red wash · 2006 1 sentence 2021In Ongom v. Department of Health, our Supreme Court extended Nguyen to hold that the burden of proof in all professional disciplinary proceedings is clear and convincing evidence. 159 Wn.2d 132 , 142–43, 148 P.3d 1029 (2006).	1	2021–2021
Hardee v. Department of Social & Health Services green wash · 2011 2 sentences 2021But in Hardee v. Department of Social and Health Services, our Supreme Court overruled Ongom and held that the clear and convincing evidence standard did not apply to administrative hearings to revoke a child home care license. 172 Wn.2d 1, 18 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011). 2021But in Hardee v. Department of Social and Health Services, our Supreme Court overruled Ongom and held that the clear and convincing evidence standard did not apply to administrative hearings to revoke a child home care license. 172 Wn.2d 1, 18 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011).	1	2021–2021
Nguyen v. STATE HEALTH MED. QUALITY ASSUR. green wash · 2001 1 sentence 2021Since we decline to suppress the outdoor kennel evidence, we do not reach this claim. 10 No. 80344-1-I/11 evidence standard instead of a clear and convincing evidence standard. 144 Wn.2d 516, 534 , 29 P.3d 689 (2001).	1	2021–2021
Lang v. Dental Quality Assurance Commission green washctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2021But this situation more resembles Lang v. Department of Health, in which the Dental Quality Assurance Commission and MQAC applied both a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence standard because of a Court of Appeals split on which standard applied. 138 Wn.	1	2021–2021
In Re Levias red wash · 1973 2 sentences 2019T.J.S.-M. argues this was an improper standard to apply. ¶ 20 T.J.S.-M. asserts that the clear and convincing standard is the civil counterpart to beyond a reasonable doubt in the juvenile context, relying on In re Levias, 83 Wash.2d 253 , 517 P.2d 588 (1973). 2019T.J.S.-M. argues this was an improper standard to apply. ¶ 20 T.J.S.-M. asserts that the clear and convincing standard is the civil counterpart to beyond a reasonable doubt in the juvenile context, relying on In re Levias, 83 Wash.2d 253 , 517 P.2d 588 (1973).	1	2019–2019
Christensen v. Grant County Hospital District No. 1 green wash · 2004 1 sentence 2017But the trial court appeared to base its decision instead on its conclusion that Nguyen failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard. 11 Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 307 . -5- No. 75107-7-1 / 6 opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier proceeding."12 The party asserting collateral estoppel must show that the issues in both actions are identical, the earlier proceeding ended in a judgment on the merits, the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to, or in privity with a party to, the earlier proceeding, and applying collateral estoppel does not work an i	1	2017–2017
Leen v. Demopolis green washctapp · 1991 1 sentence 2014In Leen, the court considered the clear and convincing evidence test in the case of conflicting affidavits. 62 Wn.	1	2014–2014
In re the Detention of Sease green washctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2013But as he acknowledges, our state 17 149 Wn.	1	2013–2013
Taylor v. Wyrick green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1996Amicus curiae Allied Daily Newspapers' contention that Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wash.2d 473 , 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 2942 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1339 (1982) and Margoles v. Hubbart, 111 Wash.2d 195 , 760 P.2d 324 (1988), require a different result is misplaced. 1996Amicus curiae Allied Daily Newspapers' contention that Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wash.2d 473 , 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 , 102 S.Ct. 2942 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1339 (1982) and Margoles v. Hubbart, 111 Wash.2d 195 , 760 P.2d 324 (1988), require a different result is misplaced.	1	1996–1996
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan green scotus · 1964	1	1995–1995
Chase v. Daily Record, Inc. green wash · 1973	1	1989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (4) USC § 29u.s.c.151-169 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.180 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.140 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.185 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.350 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 374 (1996–2026) TX 306 (1980–2026) CA 247 (1948–2026) OH 185 (1987–2026) PA 115 (1983–2026) NY 101 (1980–2026) OR 97 (1981–2026) AL 81 (1979–2026) MI 79 (1978–2026) IN 64 (1983–2026) FL 62 (1974–2025) IL 58 (1977–2026) NM 52 (1982–2026) DC 49 (1981–2025) CT 47 (1986–2025) AK 44 (1983–2025) KS 40 (1979–2026) GA 37 (1984–2021) OK 35 (1995–2024) LA 35 (1991–2025) MD 34 (1976–2021) AZ 33 (1969–2026) CO 30 (1982–2025) MN 29 (1987–2025) VT 29 (1983–2026) ME 28 (1984–2024) NJ 28 (1979–2021) IA 24 (1982–2025) WA 24 (1986–2026) UT 22 (1951–2024) MO 21 (1992–2025) NC 18 (1983–2024) WI 18 (1967–2025) NV 16 (1986–2025) VA 16 (1995–2022) SD 15 (1975–2011) MA 13 (1984–2026) ND 13 (1986–2026) MS 13 (1989–2024) HI 11 (1963–2026) ID 11 (1975–2024) KY 11 (1986–2025) DE 9 (1982–2025) RI 8 (1989–2026) WY 7 (1986–2022) NE 7 (1993–2024) MT 7 (1997–2021) WV 6 (2019–2026) AR 5 (1979–2016) VI 4 (2013–2025) NH 4 (2011–2025) SC 2 (2001–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check