clear and convincing standard in Nebraska

2024Cite as 315 Neb. 679 specific facts showing a genuine issue and may not rest only upon mere allegations or denials. 37 Still, the Court in Anderson reiterated that a higher under- lying burden of proof at trial does not change the fact that “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . .” 38 Furthermore, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” 39 [10] The Court emphasized in Anderson that its “holding th

2022Id.

2017So too, in State v. Hayden, 233 Neb. 211 , 444 N.W.2d, 317 (1989), a defendant acquitted on grounds of insanity claimed the State offered insufficient evidence to support a finding by the clear and convincing standard.

2017So too, in State v. Hayden, 233 Neb. 211 , 444 N.W.2d, 317 (1989), a defendant acquitted on grounds of insanity claimed the State offered insufficient evidence to support a finding by the clear and convincing standard.

2014Co., 245 Neb. 712 , 515 N.W.2d 416 (1994); Commerce Sav.

2014Co., 245 Neb. 712 , 515 N.W.2d 416 (1994); Commerce Sav.

2006Addington, supra. Our inquiry is limited to whether Hergert violated his duties to the public as a constitutional officer of this state, that is, whether he has committed a “misdemeanor in office.” Whether Hergert should be impeached does not depend upon whether he could be convicted of violating a criminal statute, but upon whether his alleged conduct is “ ‘ “in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest....”’” State v. Douglas, 217 Neb. 199, 202 , 349 N.W.2d 870, 875 (1984), quoting Hastings, sup

2004In In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 , 481 N.W.2d 905 (1992), the Nebraska Supreme Court acknowledged that differing standards of proof apply to criminal and juvenile cases and determined that a parent’s conduct may be grounds for a juvenile court to acquire jurisdiction under the clear and convincing standard, notwithstanding that the parent was acquitted of a criminal charge for conduct detrimental to the child under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

2004In In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 , 481 N.W.2d 905 (1992), the Nebraska Supreme Court acknowledged that differing standards of proof apply to criminal and juvenile cases and determined that a parent’s conduct may be grounds for a juvenile court to acquire jurisdiction under the clear and convincing standard, notwithstanding that the parent was acquitted of a criminal charge for conduct detrimental to the child under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

2004See, e.g., § 43-279.01(3); In re Interest of Kantril P. & Chenelle P., 257 Neb. 450 , 598 N.W.2d 729 (1999); In re Interest of Shepherd, 211 Neb. 313, 318 N.W.2d 288 (1982).

2004See, e.g., § 43-279.01(3); In re Interest of Kantril P. & Chenelle P., 257 Neb. 450 , 598 N.W.2d 729 (1999); In re Interest of Shepherd, 211 Neb. 313, 318 N.W.2d 288 (1982).

2004See, e.g., § 43-279.01(3); In re Interest of Kantril P. & Chenelle P., 257 Neb. 450 , 598 N.W.2d 729 (1999); In re Interest of Shepherd, 211 Neb. 313, 318 N.W.2d 288 (1982).

2004See, e.g., § 43-279.01(3); In re Interest of Kantril P. & Chenelle P., 257 Neb. 450 , 598 N.W.2d 729 (1999); In re Interest of Shepherd, 211 Neb. 313, 318 N.W.2d 288 (1982).

2000Like in Reid, supra, Melissa and the objectors each presented evidence which, if believed, supported their argument.

1997We find the clear and convincing standard used in [the statute] acceptable." (Emphasis in original.) Id., 497 U.S. at 516, 110 S.Ct. at 2981.

1997We find the clear and convincing standard used in [the statute] acceptable.” (Emphasis in original.) Id., 497 U.S. at 516.

1994In State v. Lake, 33 Ohio App. 3d 275 , 515 N.E.2d 960 (1986), the same court held that the least restrictive alternative requirement applied only to transfers between facilities and not between wards of the same facility.

1994In State v. Lake, 33 Ohio App. 3d 275 , 515 N.E.2d 960 (1986), the same court held that the least restrictive alternative requirement applied only to transfers between facilities and not between wards of the same facility.

1994The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the clear and convincing standard applied to hearings for the determination of confinement of an insanity acquittee, “even when the only issue consists in ascertaining which controlled environment, among the available alternatives, is most appropriate to the patient’s mental health.” Id. at 392 , 469 N.E.2d at 1044 .

1994The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the clear and convincing standard applied to hearings for the determination of confinement of an insanity acquittee, “even when the only issue consists in ascertaining which controlled environment, among the available alternatives, is most appropriate to the patient’s mental health.” Id. at 392 , 469 N.E.2d at 1044 .

1994After recognizing that the clear and convincing standard of proof is mandated in both the initial determination of commitment and any determination that the commitment should be continued, the court held that when the sole question is whether the appellant should be transferred from one facility to a less restrictive one, “any determination made by the trial court in such cases will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Id. at 113 , 512 N.E.2d at 656 .

1994After recognizing that the clear and convincing standard of proof is mandated in both the initial determination of commitment and any determination that the commitment should be continued, the court held that when the sole question is whether the appellant should be transferred from one facility to a less restrictive one, “any determination made by the trial court in such cases will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Id. at 113 , 512 N.E.2d at 656 .

1994In State v. Bruton, 27 Ohio App. 3d 362 , 501 N.E.2d 651 (1985), the clear and convincing standard was applied by the trial court when it refused a less restrictive environment, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment.

1994In State v. Bruton, 27 Ohio App. 3d 362 , 501 N.E.2d 651 (1985), the clear and convincing standard was applied by the trial court when it refused a less restrictive environment, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment.

1990The court, *792 therefore, met the federal due process clause burden of proof required by Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 , 100 S. Ct. 1254 , 63 L.

1990The court, *792 therefore, met the federal due process clause burden of proof required by Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 , 100 S. Ct. 1254 , 63 L.

1988(For *489 another application of the clear and convincing standard of proof in a law action, see Castellano v. Bitkower, 216 Neb. 806 , 346 N.W.2d 249 (1984), which required such quantum of proof in a suit to recover on lost promissory notes.) Thus, the district court held the plaintiff to the correct standard of proof, and the record provides no basis for concluding that the district court’s finding of no undue influence under that standard is clearly wrong.

1988(For *489 another application of the clear and convincing standard of proof in a law action, see Castellano v. Bitkower, 216 Neb. 806 , 346 N.W.2d 249 (1984), which required such quantum of proof in a suit to recover on lost promissory notes.) Thus, the district court held the plaintiff to the correct standard of proof, and the record provides no basis for concluding that the district court’s finding of no undue influence under that standard is clearly wrong.

1981To the extent that Foos v. Reuter, 180 Neb. 301 , 142 N.W.2d 552 (1966), and Wells v. Tietge, 143 Neb. 230 , 9 N.W.2d 180 (1943), establish a clear and convincing standard, they are overruled.

1981To the extent that Foos v. Reuter, 180 Neb. 301 , 142 N.W.2d 552 (1966), and Wells v. Tietge, 143 Neb. 230 , 9 N.W.2d 180 (1943), establish a clear and convincing standard, they are overruled.

1981To the extent that Foos v. Reuter, 180 Neb. 301 , 142 N.W.2d 552 (1966), and Wells v. Tietge, 143 Neb. 230 , 9 N.W.2d 180 (1943), establish a clear and convincing standard, they are overruled.

1981To the extent that Foos v. Reuter, 180 Neb. 301 , 142 N.W.2d 552 (1966), and Wells v. Tietge, 143 Neb. 230 , 9 N.W.2d 180 (1943), establish a clear and convincing standard, they are overruled.