clear and convincing evidence standard (South Dakota) · Go Syfert
← South Dakota issues

clear and convincing evidence standard in South Dakota

15 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by South Dakota 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 (6)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re the Custody of S.E.G.green
minnctapp · 1993 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011In re Custody of S.E.G., 507 N.W.2d 872, 878 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993); In re Adoption of Baby Girl B, 2003 O.K.

2011In re Custody of S.E.G., 507 N.W.2d 872, 878 (Minn.Ct.App.1993); In re Adoption of Baby Girl B., 2003 OK CIV APP 24, ¶ 77 , 67 P.3d 359, 373 (2003).

22
Matter of DBgreen
sd · 1986 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986SDCL 26-8-22.10; In re D.B., 382 N.W.2d 419, 421 (S.D.1986); In re M.W., 374 N.W.2d 889, 894 (S.D.1985).

1986SDCL 26-8-22.10; In re D.B., 382 N.W.2d 419 , 421 (S.D. 1986); In re M.W., 374 N.W.2d 889 , 894 (S.D. 1985).

22
People in Interest of MWgreen
sd · 1985 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986SDCL 26-8-22.10; In re D.B., 382 N.W.2d 419, 421 (S.D.1986); In re M.W., 374 N.W.2d 889, 894 (S.D.1985).

1986SDCL 26-8-22.10; In re D.B., 382 N.W.2d 419 , 421 (S.D. 1986); In re M.W., 374 N.W.2d 889 , 894 (S.D. 1985).

22
In Re Adoption of Baby Girl B.green
oklacivapp · 2003 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011In re Custody of S.E.G., 507 N.W.2d 872, 878 (Minn.Ct.App.1993); In re Adoption of Baby Girl B., 2003 OK CIV APP 24, ¶ 77 , 67 P.3d 359, 373 (2003).

2011In re Custody of S.E.G., 507 N.W.2d 872, 878 (Minn.Ct.App.1993); In re Adoption of Baby Girl B., 2003 OK CIV APP 24, ¶ 77 , 67 P.3d 359, 373 (2003).

11
State v. Chavezgreen
sd · 2003 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004See Chavez, 2003 SD 93 , 668 N.W.2d 89 . [16] In this regard, I would urge the members of this Court to hold that the South Dakota constitution provides greater protection to a motorist than the federal constitution.

2004See Chavez, 2003 SD 93 , 668 N.W.2d 89 . [16] In this regard, I would urge the members of this Court to hold that the South Dakota constitution provides greater protection to a motorist than the federal constitution.

11
Flockhart v. Wyantgreen
sd · 1991 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993We explained this standard in Flockhart v. Wyant, 467 N.W.2d 473, 475 (S.D.1991), stating: SDCL 21-1-4.1 requires the trial court to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to determine, before any such claim may be submitted to discovery or to the jury, whether there is a reasonable basis to believe there has been a willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part of the party claimed against.

1993We explained this standard in Flockhart v. Wyant, 467 N.W.2d 473, 475 (S.D.1991), stating: SDCL 21-1^11 requires the trial court to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to determine, before any such claim may be submitted to discovery or to the jury, whether there is a reasonable basis to believe there has been a willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part' of the party claimed against.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
People ex rel. T.I. green
sd · 2005
2 sentences

2011We then held, “Considering the firm congressional intent behind ICWA, the standard most consistent with the Act requires clear and convincing evidence of good cause . . . .” Id. [¶22.] Other courts have applied the clear and convincing evidence standard to findings of good cause to deviate from the ICWA placement preferences.

2011We then held, “Considering the firm congressional intent behind ICWA, the standard most consistent with the Act requires clear and convincing evidence of good cause....” Id. [¶ 22.] Other courts have applied the clear and convincing evidence standard to findings of good cause to deviate from the ICWA placement preferences.

22011–2011
Matter of BE green
sd · 1979
2 sentences

1988This Court has stated that "termination of parental rights is a drastic, final step that should be exercised with great caution." B.E., 287 N.W.2d at 95 .

1988This Court has stated that “termination of parental rights is a drastic, final step that should be exercised with great caution.” B.E., 287 N.W.2d at 95 .

21988–1988
People in Interest of SH green
sd · 1982
2 sentences

1986SDCL 26-8-22.10; People in Interest of L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1983); People in Interest of S.H., 323 N.W.2d 851 (S.D.1982).

1986SDCL 26-8-22.10; People in Interest of L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1983); People in Interest of S.H., 323 N.W.2d 851 (S.D.1982).

21986–1986
People in Interest of LA green
sd · 1983
2 sentences

1986SDCL 26-8-22.10; People in Interest of L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1983); People in Interest of S.H., 323 N.W.2d 851 (S.D.1982).

1986SDCL 26-8-22.10; People in Interest of L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1983); People in Interest of S.H., 323 N.W.2d 851 (S.D.1982).

21986–1986
Santosky v. Kramer green
scotus · 1982
2 sentences

1983To replace this child with the mother beggars the imagination, for Finding of Fact VIII provides: "The Court finds from the psychological evaluation and testimony of Yvonne Hagg, that [the mother] shows a lack of common sense, consistent poor judgment, extremely limited maternal and nuturing [sic] qualities, and that Respondent mother habitually places her needs ahead of and superior to those of the minor child." Again, I point out that the majority opinion affirms the findings of fact below as having been supported by the clear and convincing evidence test set forth in Santosky v. Kramer, 455

1983To replace this child with the mother beggars the imagination, for Finding of Fact VIII provides: "The Court finds from the psychological evaluation and testimony of Yvonne Hagg, that [the mother] shows a lack of common sense, consistent poor judgment, extremely limited maternal and nuturing [sic] qualities, and that Respondent mother habitually places her needs ahead of and superior to those of the minor child." Again, I point out that the majority opinion affirms the findings of fact below as having been supported by the clear and convincing evidence test set forth in Santosky v. Kramer, 455

21983–1983
Brown v. Illinois green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

1977I see nothing in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 , that establishes a higher standard of proof where consent is obtained following an arrest made without probable cause, and I would not adopt the clear and convincing evidence test in the absence of any compelling reason to do so.

1977I see nothing in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 , that establishes a higher standard of proof where consent is obtained following an arrest made without probable cause, and I would not adopt the clear and convincing evidence test in the absence of any compelling reason to do so.

11977–1977
Brown v. Warner green
sd · 1961
2 sentences

1976Brown v. Warner, 78 S.D. 647 , 107 N.W.2d 1 ; Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S.D. 324 , 134 N.W.2d 777 .

1976Brown v. Warner, 78 S.D. 647 , 107 N.W.2d 1 ; Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S.D. 324 , 134 N.W.2d 777 .

11976–1976
Cromwell v. Hosbrook green
sd · 1965
2 sentences

1976Brown v. Warner, 78 S.D. 647 , 107 N.W.2d 1 ; Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S.D. 324 , 134 N.W.2d 777 .

1976Brown v. Warner, 78 S.D. 647 , 107 N.W.2d 1 ; Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S.D. 324 , 134 N.W.2d 777 .

11976–1976
Mahan v. Mahan green
sd · 1963
2 sentences

1975The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that testatrix intentionally omitted to provide for Carolyn Schalk, whether we apply the clear and convincing evidence test, of which nothing is said in In Re Swenson’s Estate, supra, nor to which is the decision in Mahan v. Mahan, 80 S.D. 211 , 121 N.W.2d 367 , applicable, or the preponderance of the evidence test.

1975The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that testatrix intentionally omitted to provide for Carolyn Schalk, whether we apply the clear and convincing evidence test, of which nothing is said in In Re Swenson’s Estate, supra, nor to which is the decision in Mahan v. Mahan, 80 S.D. 211 , 121 N.W.2d 367 , applicable, or the preponderance of the evidence test.

11975–1975

Statutes the citing opinions construe

SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-52 (10)

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