110 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Succession of Bartiegreen2 sentences2004To satisfy the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must show "the existence of the disputed fact [is] highly probable, that is, much more probable than its non-existence." Succession of Bartie, 472 So.2d 578, 582 (La.1985). 1997In support of this assertion, Courtney cites Comeaux v. Sam Broussard Trucking, 94-1631 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/95) , 657 So.2d 449 , in which this court held that “to satisfy the clear and convincing standard, it must be established that the ‘existence of the disputed fact [is] highly probable, that is, much more probable than its non-existence.’ ” Id. at 454 (citing Succession of Bartie, 472 So.2d 578, 582 (La.1985)). | 6 | 7 |
Succession of Lyonsgreen2 sentences2015The clear and convincing standard applies in cases, “where there is thought to be -special danger, of deception, or where .the court considers that the particular type of claim should be disfavored on policy grounds.” Id., citing McCormick on Evidence, Section 340(b), p. 798 (2nd ed. 1972). 2010Only in exceptional controversies is the clear and convincing standard applied in civil cases “where there is thought to be special danger of deception, or where the court considers that the particular type of claim should be disfavored on policy grounds.” Succession of Lyons, 452 So.2d 1161, 1165 (La.1984) (quoting McCormiok on Evidence § 340(b), p. 798 (2d ed.1972)). | 4 | 7 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences1994Appellee draws our attention to Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) as support for a requirement of a clear and convincing standard of proof of abuse in proceedings involving LSA-R.S. 9:364(D). 1994Appellee draws our attention to Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) as support for a requirement of a clear and convincing standard of proof of abuse in proceedings involving LSA-R.S. 9:364(D). | 2 | 6 |
Comeaux v. Sam Broussard Truckinggreen2 sentences1997In support of this assertion, Courtney cites Comeaux v. Sam Broussard Trucking, 94-1631 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/95) , 657 So.2d 449 , in which this court held that “to satisfy the clear and convincing standard, it must be established that the ‘existence of the disputed fact [is] highly probable, that is, much more probable than its non-existence.’ ” Id. at 454 (citing Succession of Bartie, 472 So.2d 578, 582 (La.1985)). 1997In support of this assertion, Courtney cites Comeaux v. Sam Broussard Trucking, 94-1631 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/95) , 657 So.2d 449 , in which this court held that “to satisfy the clear and convincing standard, it must be established that the ‘existence of the disputed fact [is] highly probable, that is, much more probable than its non-existence.’ ” Id. at 454 (citing Succession of Bartie, 472 So.2d 578, 582 (La.1985)). | 1 | 4 |
Griffith v. Latiolaisgreen2 sentences2026This court cited Griffith, 48 So.3d 1058 , and noted that the clear and convincing standard required a showing that the existence of a disputed fact is much more probable than its non-existence. 2015The clear and convincing standard is a heavier evidentiary burden than preponderance of the evidence; to prove by clear and convincing evidence means to present “evidence' indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” Palazzolo , 08-0075, p. 36, 10 So.3d at 769 (quoting Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 596 (8th ed.2004)); see Griffith v. Latiolais, 10-0754, p. 18 (La.10/19/10) 48 So.3d 1058, 1070 . | 1 | 2 |
In Re Chaissongreen2 sentences2017In re Chaisson, 549 So. 2d 259, 263 (La. 1989). 2017The standard of proof in judicial discipline cases is the clear and convincing standard. ■ In re Chaisson, 549 So.2d 259, 263 (La. 1989). | 1 | 2 |
Louisiana State Bar Association v. Edwinsgreen2 sentences2014The clear and convincing standard “requires that the existence of the disputed fact be highly probable, that is, much more probable than its nonexistence.” Louisiana State Bar Ass’n. v. Edwins, 329 So.2d 437, 442 (La.1976) (quoting Sanders, The Anatomy of Proof in Civil Actions, 28 La.L.Rev. 297, 304 (1968)). 2013Id. | 1 | 2 |
Chatelain v. STATE, DOTDgreen2 sentences1999And Development, 586 So.2d 1373 (La.1991), in which the court held that the clear and convincing standard of Art. 209 applies when a party attempts to prove an illegitimate child was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents under La. 1997In Chatelain v. State, DOTD, 586 So.2d 1373, 1382, n. 10 (La.1991), we stated in a footnote that the clear and convincing standard of Article 209 "has been held to be procedural and therefore applicable to cases that are tried after the amendment." Chatelain presented an unusual fact situation in that the mother of the decedent brought a wrongful death and survival action wherein her right to recover was dependant on the decedent having no surviving spouse or children. | 1 | 2 |
Charles v. South Cent. Industriesgreen1 sentence2016R.S. 23:1021(7); see also Charles v. South Central Industries, 96-0883, p. 6 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So.2d 706, 709 (admonishing that " 'reviewing courts must analyze claimed disability caused by mental conditions with utmost caution in view of the nebulous characteristics of mental conditions and the possibility of symptoms being easily ^feigned.” ”) Because we find that even under a preponderance of the evidence standard Mr. Leidelmeijen failed to meet his burden of proof, we do not find it necessary to address whether the clear and convincing standard applies here. . | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Judge J. Robin FREEgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Santaellagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tullier v. Tulliergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Succession of Broussardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Knighten v. Knightengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Knighten v. Knightengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hinckley v. Hinckleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dupree v. Ace Home & Autogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Augustine v. Paul Wall Truck Line, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pravatagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arant v. St. Francis Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Johnson
green
2 sentences2004In In re Johnson, 96-1866 at p. 4 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196 , 1200, we applied the clear and convincing standard of proof to a case where the judge and OSC entered into a stipulation of facts which was later adopted by the Judiciary Commission in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1998In In re Johnson, 96-1866 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196 , we applied the clear and convincing standard of proof to a case where the judge and Special Counsel for the Judiciary Commission entered into a stipulation of facts which was later adopted, with the supporting exhibits, by the Judiciary Commission in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. | 14 | 1997–2016 |
Talbot v. Talbot
green
2 sentences2026In Ballard,7 our court adopted the Louisiana Supreme Court’s definition of the clear and convincing standard, which it described as follows: “The clear and convincing standard requires a party to prove the existence of a contested fact is highly probable, or much more probable than its non-existence.” Talbot v. Talbot, 03-0814, p. 10 (La. 12/12/03), 864 So.2d 590 , 598. 7 Ballard at 414 So. 3d 800 , 810. 4 We agree with the State’s argument that the DNA results are not dispositive; however, the DNA findings, in combination with all the evidence in the record, does make it “much more probable t 2024C. art. 3499.' Ms. Williams contends that, because Mrs. Scott executed the declaration of acquisition of separate property 5 Mr. Scott asserts Ms. Williams had the burden of proving the Shenandoah property was Mrs. Scott' s separate property through proof that is " fixed, clear, positive and legally certain." In Talbot, 864 So. 2d at 598- 600, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted this burden of proof was the same as the clear and convincing standard and declined to require a spouse to rebut the presumption of community through proof that is fixed, clear, positive, and legally certain. | 10 | 2006–2026 |
In Re Huckaby
green
2 sentences2016For the reasons set forth below, and to reign in the length of this opinion, we hereby adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Commission, which, the record convinces us, properly applied the clear and convincing standard of proof as set forth in Huckaby, 95-0041, p. 6, 656 So.2d at 296 . 2016For the reasons set forth below, and. to reign in the length of this opinion, we hereby adopt the findings of fact and |7conclusions of law made by the Commission, which, the record convinces us, properly applied the clear and convincing standard of proof as set forth in Huckaby , 95-0041, p. 6, 656 So.2d at 296 . | 10 | 1997–2016 |
Hatcherson v. Diebold, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Ms. Decquir, citing the Supreme Court case of, Hatcher v. Diebold, 2003-3263 (La.5/15/01), 784 So.2d 1284 , argues that she had met the clear and convincing evidence standard in proving her claim and she further asserts that “the clear and convincing standard in a worker’s compensation case is an ‘intermediate standard falling somewhere between the ordinary ‘preponderance of the evidence’ civil standard and the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard,” Id., p. 4 784 So.2d at 1288 . 2009Ms. Decquir, citing the Supreme Court case of, Hatcher v. Diebold, 2003-3263 (La.5/15/01), 784 So.2d 1284 , argues that she had met the clear and convincing evidence standard in proving her claim and she further asserts that “the clear and convincing standard in a worker’s compensation case is an ‘intermediate standard falling somewhere between the ordinary ‘preponderance of the evidence’ civil standard and the beyond a reasonable doubt criminal standard,” Id., p. 4 784 So.2d at 1288 . | 6 | 2005–2019 |
Huddleston v. United States
green
2 sentences2004In Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 687 , 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1500 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that the clear and convincing standard is no longer applicable, and that preponderance of the evidence is the proper burden of proof. 2004In Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 687 , 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1500 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that the clear and convincing standard is no longer applicable, and that preponderance of the evidence is the proper burden of proof. | 6 | 1996–2004 |
In re Bankston
neutral
2 sentences2019In re: Bankston , 01-2780 (La. 3/8/02), 810 So.2d 1113 ; Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Wilkinson , 562 So.2d 902 (La. 1990). 2013In re: Bankston, 01-2780 (La.3/8/02), 810 So.2d 1113 ; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Wilkinson, 562 So.2d 902 (La.1990). | 5 | 2003–2019 |
Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Wilkinson
green
2 sentences2019In re: Bankston , 01-2780 (La. 3/8/02), 810 So.2d 1113 ; Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Wilkinson , 562 So.2d 902 (La. 1990). 2013In re: Bankston, 01-2780 (La.3/8/02), 810 So.2d 1113 ; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Wilkinson, 562 So.2d 902 (La.1990). | 5 | 2003–2019 |
In Re Bowers
green
2 sentences2011In re Morvant, 09-747 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 74, 79 ; In re Hughes, 03-3408 (La.4/22/04), 874 So.2d 746, 760 ; In re Bowers, 98-1735 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 875 ; In re Johnson, 96-1866 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196 ; In re Huckaby, 95-0041 (La.5/22/95), 656 So.2d 292 . 2011In re Morvant, 09-747 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 74, 79 ; In re Hughes, 03-3408 (La.4/22/04), 874 So.2d 746, 760 ; In re Bowers, 98-1735 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 875 ; In re Johnson, *678 96-1866 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196 ; In re Huckaby, 95-0041 (La.5/22/95), 656 So.2d 292 . | 4 | 2011–2011 |
In Re Hughes
green
2 sentences2011In re Morvant, 09-747 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 74, 79 ; In re Hughes, 03-3408 (La.4/22/04), 874 So.2d 746, 760 ; In re Bowers, 98-1735 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 875 ; In re Johnson, 96-1866 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196 ; In re Huckaby, 95-0041 (La.5/22/95), 656 So.2d 292 . 2011In re Morvant, 09-747 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 74, 79 ; In re Hughes, 03-3408 (La.4/22/04), 874 So.2d 746, 760 ; In re Bowers, 98-1735 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 875 ; In re Johnson, *678 96-1866 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196 ; In re Huckaby, 95-0041 (La.5/22/95), 656 So.2d 292 . | 4 | 2011–2011 |
In Re Morvant
green
2 sentences2011In re Morvant, 09-747 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 74, 79 ; In re Hughes, 03-3408 (La.4/22/04), 874 So.2d 746, 760 ; In re Bowers, 98-1735 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 875 ; In re Johnson, 96-1866 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196 ; In re Huckaby, 95-0041 (La.5/22/95), 656 So.2d 292 . 2011In re Morvant, 09-747 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 74, 79 ; In re Hughes, 03-3408 (La.4/22/04), 874 So.2d 746, 760 ; In re Bowers, 98-1735 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 875 ; In re Johnson, *678 96-1866 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196 ; In re Huckaby, 95-0041 (La.5/22/95), 656 So.2d 292 . | 4 | 2011–2011 |
Iberia Medical Center v. Ward
green
2 sentences2021Iberia Medical Center v. Ward, 09-2705 (La. 11/30/10), 53 So.3d 421, 432 ; Crews v. Alexas Corp., et al., 03-915 (La. 2019“The clear and convincing standard requires a party to prove the existence of a contested fact is highly probable, or much more probable than its non-existence.” Iberia Medical Center v. Ward, 2009-2705, p. 16 (La. 11/30/10), 53 So.3d 421, 432 . | 3 | 2015–2021 |
Mulkey v. Mulkey
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2020App. 2 Cir. 1/13/16), 184 So.3d 246, 253 , which states: The intermediate standard “clear and convincing” means more than a “preponderance” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Mulkey v. Mulkey, 2012-2709 (La. 05/07/13), 118 So.3d 357, 369 . | 3 | 2016–2020 |
In Re Quirk
green
2 sentences2013Quirk, supra; In re Johnson, 96-1866 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 1196, 1199 ; In re Huckaby, 95-0041 (La.5/22/95), 656 So.2d 292, 296 . 2003Id. | 3 | 1999–2013 |
Daniel v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Daniel, 02-2427 at p. 6, 861 So.2d at 725-26 . 2010Daniel , 02-2427 at p. 6, 861 So.2d at 725-26 . | 2 | 2010–2016 |
Comeaux v. City of Crowley
green
2 sentences2008Comeaux v. City of Crowley, 01-32 (La.7/3/01), 793 So.2d 1215 . 2008Comeaux v. City of Crowley, 01-32 (La.7/3/01), 793 So.2d 1215 . | 2 | 2005–2008 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2002See: State v. Miller, 98-0301 *1065 (La.9/9/98), 718 So.2d 960 ; State v. Cotton, 00-0850 (La.1/29/01), 778 So.2d 569 , reh'g granted in part, 00-0850 (La.4/20/01), 787 So.2d 278 . 2002See: State v. Hills, 99-1750 (La.5/16/00), 761 So.2d 516 ; State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), 718 So.2d 960 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Bundren v. Affiliated Nursing Homes
neutral
2 sentences1996Bundren v. Affiliated Nursing Homes, Inc., 94-808 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/95) ; 649 So.2d 1177 . 1996Bundren v. Affiliated Nursing Homes, Inc., 94-808 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/95) ; 649 So.2d 1177 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Nevill v. Parish Democratic Executive Committee
neutral
2 sentences1985LSA-C.C.P. art. 2082; Nevill v. Parish Democratic Committee, 7 La.App. 286 (Orl.Cir.1927). 4 Accordingly, we consider whether the evidence adduced proves the point by a clear and convincing standard, regardless of the trial court’s misstatement of the law. 1985LSA-C.C.P. art. 2082; Nevill v. Parish Democratic Committee, 7 La.App. 286 (Orl.Cir.1927). [4] Accordingly, we consider whether the evidence adduced proves the point by a clear and convincing standard, regardless of the trial court's misstatement of the law. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Burrell v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 2 Cir. 1/13/16), 184 So.3d 246, 253 , which states: The intermediate standard “clear and convincing” means more than a “preponderance” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Mulkey v. Mulkey, 2012-2709 (La. 05/07/13), 118 So.3d 357, 369 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.L.D. and L.S.D.
green
1 sentence2019State in Int. of A.L.D., 2018-1271 (La. 1/30/19), 263 So. 3d 860 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Brumfield v. ANTHONY TIMBERLANDS, INC.
neutral
1 sentence2015R.S. 23:1221(2)(c); the jurisprudence holding that the claimant must prove “that the resulting disability is related to an on-the-job injury[,]” Buxton v. Iowa Police Dept., 2009-0520, p. 12 (La.10/20/09), 23 So.3d 275, 283 ; and the requirement of objective medical evidence to prove a compensable injury, Brumfield v. Anthony Timberlands Inc., 2008-380 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/08) , 2 So.3d 489 , writ denied, 2009-0081 (La.3/13/09), 5 So.3d 122 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Buxton v. Iowa Police Department green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Capone v. Singletary neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Poissenot v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Young v. Physicians & Surgeons Hosp. neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Lawrence v. Chapter 7 Trustee (In Re Lawrence) green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Frith v. Riverwood, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Frith v. Riverwood, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| In Re Norris green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Bruno v. Harbert Intern. Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Morris v. Morris neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Barrow v. Barrow green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Barrow v. Barrow green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Morris v. Morris green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Greis v. Lake Charles Memorial Hosp. neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Williams v. Williams neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Prince v. Hopson green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Greis v. Lake Charles Memorial Hosp. neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Maise green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.