97 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 51 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. S. A. R.green2 sentences2026Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 501 (2026) 503 of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment proceedings, the question for us as the reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was highly probable that appellant was a danger to * * * others because of a mental disorder.” State v. S. A. R., 308 Or App 365, 366 , 479 P3d 618 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2026Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 501 (2026) 503 of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment proceedings, the question for us as the reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was highly probable that appellant was a danger to * * * others because of a mental disorder.” State v. S. A. R., 308 Or App 365, 366 , 479 P3d 618 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 7 | 40 |
State v. Furnishgreen2 sentences2014However, “[w]e have found generally that where a mentally ill person has threatened and has committed overt violent acts against others in the past, the clear and convincing evidence standard is met.” State v. King, 177 Or App 373, 377 , 34 P3d 739 (2001); see generally, State v. Furnish, 86 Or App 194, 197 , 738 P2d 607 (1987) (finding that there was sufficient evidence that the appellant presented a danger to others where he “made a number of threats of violence to members of his family” and he “had actually harmed family members” more than once rather than committing one “isolated instance 2014However, “[w]e have found generally that where a mentally ill person has threatened and has committed overt violent acts against others in the past, the clear and convincing evidence standard is met.” State v. King, 177 Or App 373, 377 , 34 P3d 739 (2001); see generally, State v. Furnish, 86 Or App 194, 197 , 738 P2d 607 (1987) (finding that there was sufficient evidence that the appellant presented a danger to others where he “made a number of threats of violence to members of his family” and he “had actually harmed family members” more than once rather than committing one “isolated instance | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bodellgreen2 sentences2004This court has determined that the clear and convincing evidence standard is met as to that ground where a person “has threatened and has committed overt violent acts against others in the past.” Id. (citing State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548 , 853 P2d 841 (1993), and State v. Furnish, 86 Or App 194 , 738 P2d 607 (1987)). 2004This court has determined that the clear and convincing evidence standard is met as to that ground where a person “has threatened and has committed overt violent acts against others in the past.” Id. (citing State v. Bodell, 120 Or App 548 , 853 P2d 841 (1993), and State v. Furnish, 86 Or App 194 , 738 P2d 607 (1987)). | 1 | 2 |
Faber v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.green2 sentences1996See, e.g., Faber v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 106 Or App 601, 606 , 810 P2d 384 (“The clear and convincing evidence standard relates to how a jury weighs the evidence, not to how a trial court assesses the capability of the evidence to establish facts.”), rev den 312 Or 80 (1991). 1996See, e.g., Faber v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 106 Or App 601, 606 , 810 P2d 384 (“The clear and convincing evidence standard relates to how a jury weighs the evidence, not to how a trial court assesses the capability of the evidence to establish facts.”), rev den 312 Or 80 (1991). | 1 | 2 |
State v. P. D.green1 sentence2026“When reviewing a civil commitment, we view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that outcome.” P. D., 333 Or App at 739 (internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘Ultimately, in view of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment proceed- ings, the question for us as the reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was highly prob- able that ap | 1 | 1 |
In re Halttunengreen1 sentence2021“Stated differently, applicant must show that it is ‘highly probable’ that [he] has the good moral char- acter and fitness to practice law.” Halttunen, 367 Or at 361 (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Admission to Practice Law of Zielinskigreen1 sentence2021See Zielinski, 341 Or at 561 (describing the applicant’s burden by quoting and applying the clear and convincing evidence standard set out in an evidentiary hearing provision, RFA 9.45(6), when reviewing an adverse recommendation with no hearing below). | 1 | 1 |
| Lake Oswego Preservation Society v. City of Lake Oswegogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dixon v. Or. State Bd. of Nursinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. DLWgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Healthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Allmendingergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brenhubergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Woodby v. Immigration & Naturalization Servicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mathews v. Eldridgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. MR
green
2 sentences2018"The clear and convincing evidence standard is a rigorous one, requiring evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, and which makes the fact in issue highly probable." State v. M.R. , 225 Or.App. 569 , 574, 202 P.3d 221 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2018"The clear and convincing evidence standard is a rigorous one, requiring evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, and which makes the fact in issue highly probable." State v. M.R. , 225 Or.App. 569 , 574, 202 P.3d 221 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 7 | 2010–2020 |
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2009The clear and convincing evidence standard is a rigorous one, requiring “evidence that is of ‘extraordinary persuasiveness,’ and which makes the fact in issue ‘highly probable.’ ” State v. Allen, 209 Or App 647, 652 , 149 P3d 289 (2006) (quoting State v. Hambleton, 202 Or App 526, 533-34 , 123 P3d 370 (2005)). 2009The clear and convincing evidence standard is a rigorous one, requiring “evidence that is of ‘extraordinary persuasiveness,’ and which makes the fact in issue ‘highly probable.’ ” State v. Allen, 209 Or App 647, 652 , 149 P3d 289 (2006) (quoting State v. Hambleton, 202 Or App 526, 533-34 , 123 P3d 370 (2005)). | 5 | 2008–2013 |
State v. S.E.R. (In re S.E.R.)
green
2 sentences2025R., 297 Or App 121, 122 , 441 P3d 254 (2019) (“Because the stan- dard of proof in a civil commitment case is the clear-and- convincing-evidence standard, the evidence supporting com- mitment must be sufficient to permit the rational conclusion custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child; and “(B) Show a causal relationship between the particular conditions in the Indian child’s home and the likelihood that the continued custody of the Indian child by the child’s parent or custody by the child’s Indian custodian will result in serious emotional or p 2025R., 297 Or App 121, 122 , 441 P3d 254 (2019) (“Because the stan- dard of proof in a civil commitment case is the clear-and- convincing-evidence standard, the evidence supporting com- mitment must be sufficient to permit the rational conclusion custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child; and “(B) Show a causal relationship between the particular conditions in the Indian child’s home and the likelihood that the continued custody of the Indian child by the child’s parent or custody by the child’s Indian custodian will result in serious emotional or p | 4 | 2019–2025 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2014However, “[w]e have found generally that where a mentally ill person has threatened and has committed overt violent acts against others in the past, the clear and convincing evidence standard is met.” State v. King, 177 Or App 373, 377 , 34 P3d 739 (2001); see generally, State v. Furnish, 86 Or App 194, 197 , 738 P2d 607 (1987) (finding that there was sufficient evidence that the appellant presented a danger to others where he “made a number of threats of violence to members of his family” and he “had actually harmed family members” more than once rather than committing one “isolated instance 2014However, “[w]e have found generally that where a mentally ill person has threatened and has committed overt violent acts against others in the past, the clear and convincing evidence standard is met.” State v. King, 177 Or App 373, 377 , 34 P3d 739 (2001); see generally, State v. Furnish, 86 Or App 194, 197 , 738 P2d 607 (1987) (finding that there was sufficient evidence that the appellant presented a danger to others where he “made a number of threats of violence to members of his family” and he “had actually harmed family members” more than once rather than committing one “isolated instance | 4 | 2003–2014 |
State v. Hambleton
green
2 sentences2009The clear and convincing evidence standard is a rigorous one, requiring “evidence that is of ‘extraordinary persuasiveness,’ and which makes the fact in issue ‘highly probable.’ ” State v. Allen, 209 Or App 647, 652 , 149 P3d 289 (2006) (quoting State v. Hambleton, 202 Or App 526, 533-34 , 123 P3d 370 (2005)). 2009The clear and convincing evidence standard is a rigorous one, requiring “evidence that is of ‘extraordinary persuasiveness,’ and which makes the fact in issue ‘highly probable.’ ” State v. Allen, 209 Or App 647, 652 , 149 P3d 289 (2006) (quoting State v. Hambleton, 202 Or App 526, 533-34 , 123 P3d 370 (2005)). | 4 | 2008–2009 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
2 sentences2007Cruzan, 497 US at 283; Santosky, 455 US at 759 . 1982(Footnote omitted; emphasis in original.) The court also distinguished between the effect on the state's fiscal interests of requiring appointed counsel versus requiring a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof: "Unlike a constitutional requirement of hearings, see, e.g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S., at 347 [ 96 S.Ct. at 908 ], or court-appointed counsel, a stricter standard of proof would reduce factual error without imposing substantial fiscal burdens upon the State. * * *" ___ U.S. at ___, 102 S.Ct. at 1401 . [6] Defendant argues: "* * * [The mother's] testimony on the issue of p | 4 | 1982–2007 |
State v. Simon
green
2 sentences2007We concluded that "[p]redicting human behavior is an inherently speculative endeavor" and, when the legislature imposed a clear and convincing evidence standard, it sought to ensure that involuntary commitment and "deprivation of liberty that accompanies it would not occur except when based on evidence of extraordinary persuasiveness." Id. at 263 , 42 P.3d 374 (citing State v. Johnson, 131 Or.App. 561, 564 , 886 P.2d 42 (1994)). 2007We concluded that “[predicting human behavior is an inherently speculative endeavor” and, when the legislature imposed a clear and convincing evidence standard, it sought to ensure that involuntary commitment and “deprivation of liberty that accompanies it would not occur except when based on evidence of extraordinary persuasiveness.” Id. at 263 (citing State v. Johnson, 131 Or App 561, 564 , 886 P2d 42 (1994)). | 3 | 2002–2007 |
State v. A. O. P.-R.
neutral
2 sentences2026Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 501 (2026) 503 of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment proceedings, the question for us as the reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was highly probable that appellant was a danger to * * * others because of a mental disorder.” State v. S. A. R., 308 Or App 365, 366 , 479 P3d 618 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2026Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 501 (2026) 503 of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment proceedings, the question for us as the reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was highly probable that appellant was a danger to * * * others because of a mental disorder.” State v. S. A. R., 308 Or App 365, 366 , 479 P3d 618 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. C. T.
neutral
2 sentences2025“Ultimately, in view of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment proceed- ings, the question for us as the reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was highly prob- able that appellant was a danger to herself” as a result of a Nonprecedential Memo Op: 344 Or App 459 (2025) 461 mental disorder. 2025“Ultimately, in view of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof that applies in civil commitment proceed- ings, the question for us as the reviewing court is whether a rational factfinder could have found that it was highly prob- able that appellant was a danger to herself” as a result of a Nonprecedential Memo Op: 344 Or App 459 (2025) 461 mental disorder. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. S. E.
green
2 sentences2024S. E., 313 Or App at 683 . 2022Id. at 683 . | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Van Gordon v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners
green
2 sentences2018Van Gordon , 52 Or.App. at 765 , 629 P.2d 848 ; see Dixon v. Oregon State Board of Nursing , 291 Or.App. 207 , 210, 419 P.3d 774 (2018) (discussing Van Gordon and explaining that its statement of the clear and convincing evidence standard was dictum ). 2018App. 749 , 765, 629 P.2d 848 (1981), both cases in which this court identified the clear and convincing evidence standard as the applicable standard of proof for fraud and deceit allegations *209 in license revocation proceedings. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Gritzbaugh Main Street Properties, LLC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2011Gritzbaugh Main Street Prop. v. Greyhound Lines, 205 Or.App. 640, 648 , 135 P.3d 345 , adh'd to on recons., 207 Or.App. 628 , 142 P.3d 514 (2006), rev. den., 342 Or. 299 , 152 P.3d 902 (2007) (discussing the clear and convincing evidence standard in the context of remedial contempt proceedings). 2011Gritzbaugh Main Street Prop. v. Greyhound Lines, 205 Or.App. 640, 648 , 135 P.3d 345 , adh'd to on recons., 207 Or.App. 628 , 142 P.3d 514 (2006), rev. den., 342 Or. 299 , 152 P.3d 902 (2007) (discussing the clear and convincing evidence standard in the context of remedial contempt proceedings). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Gritzbaugh Main Street Properties, LLC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2011Gritzbaugh Main Street Prop. v. Greyhound Lines, 205 Or.App. 640, 648 , 135 P.3d 345 , adh'd to on recons., 207 Or.App. 628 , 142 P.3d 514 (2006), rev. den., 342 Or. 299 , 152 P.3d 902 (2007) (discussing the clear and convincing evidence standard in the context of remedial contempt proceedings). 2011Gritzbaugh Main Street Prop. v. Greyhound Lines, 205 Or.App. 640, 648 , 135 P.3d 345 , adh'd to on recons., 207 Or.App. 628 , 142 P.3d 514 (2006), rev. den., 342 Or. 299 , 152 P.3d 902 (2007) (discussing the clear and convincing evidence standard in the context of remedial contempt proceedings). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2007We concluded that “[predicting human behavior is an inherently speculative endeavor” and, when the legislature imposed a clear and convincing evidence standard, it sought to ensure that involuntary commitment and “deprivation of liberty that accompanies it would not occur except when based on evidence of extraordinary persuasiveness.” Id. at 263 (citing State v. Johnson, 131 Or App 561, 564 , 886 P2d 42 (1994)). 2007We concluded that “[predicting human behavior is an inherently speculative endeavor” and, when the legislature imposed a clear and convincing evidence standard, it sought to ensure that involuntary commitment and “deprivation of liberty that accompanies it would not occur except when based on evidence of extraordinary persuasiveness.” Id. at 263 (citing State v. Johnson, 131 Or App 561, 564 , 886 P2d 42 (1994)). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Evjen
neutral
2 sentences2007State v. Evjen, 111 Or App 368, 371 , 826 P2d 92 (1992). 2007State v. Evjen, 111 Or App 368, 371 , 826 P2d 92 (1992). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance v. McBride
green
2 sentences1994If the fraud carries with it not mere financial consequence, but public stigma or loss of liberty, then the clear and convincing evidence standard is appropriate: "The `proper occasion' for interpolating an intermediate measure of proof is in cases that are between `civil' and `criminal' and where what is to be established is akin to `guilt.'" 295 Or. at 405 , 667 P.2d 494 . 1994If the fraud carries with it not mere financial consequence, but public stigma or loss of liberty, then the clear and convincing evidence standard is appropriate: "The `proper occasion' for interpolating an intermediate measure of proof is in cases that are between `civil' and `criminal' and where what is to be established is akin to `guilt.'" 295 Or. at 405 , 667 P.2d 494 . | 2 | 1983–1994 |
State v. A. M. W.
green
1 sentence2026W., 340 Or App 473 , 474, 572 P3d 343 (2025) (inter- nal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. JDS
green
2 sentences2024S., 242 Or App 445, 447 , 263 P3d 1017 (2011) (stating that the clear and convincing evidence standard, 12 State v. J. 2024S., 242 Or App 445, 447 , 263 P3d 1017 (2011) (stating that the clear and convincing evidence standard, 12 State v. J. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hadsell
green
2 sentences2024Dismissal of criminal charges is reserved for extreme cases because it is a remedy that “frustrates the public interest in having the prosecution of crimes occur in order to promote the protection of the public and the reha- bilitation of offenders.” State v. Hadsell, 129 Or App 171, 174 , 878 P2d 444 , rev den, 320 Or 271 (1994). 2024Dismissal of criminal charges is reserved for extreme cases because it is a remedy that “frustrates the public interest in having the prosecution of crimes occur in order to promote the protection of the public and the reha- bilitation of offenders.” State v. Hadsell, 129 Or App 171, 174 , 878 P2d 444 , rev den, 320 Or 271 (1994). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. A. R. H.
green
2 sentences2022H., 314 Or App 672, 679 , 499 P3d 851 (2021), rev allowed, 369 Or 504 (2022) (Aoyagi, J., concurring) (noting that the standard under ORS 163A.030 is “forward looking”); State v. N. A. P., 216 Or App 432, 437 , 173 P3d 1251 (2007) (“The clear and convincing evidence standard of proof requires evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, so that the fact at issue is highly probable.” (Internal quotations marks omitted.)). 2022H., 314 Or App 672, 679 , 499 P3d 851 (2021), rev allowed, 369 Or 504 (2022) (Aoyagi, J., concurring) (noting that the standard under ORS 163A.030 is “forward looking”); State v. N. A. P., 216 Or App 432, 437 , 173 P3d 1251 (2007) (“The clear and convincing evidence standard of proof requires evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, so that the fact at issue is highly probable.” (Internal quotations marks omitted.)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. NAP
green
2 sentences2022H., 314 Or App 672, 679 , 499 P3d 851 (2021), rev allowed, 369 Or 504 (2022) (Aoyagi, J., concurring) (noting that the standard under ORS 163A.030 is “forward looking”); State v. N. A. P., 216 Or App 432, 437 , 173 P3d 1251 (2007) (“The clear and convincing evidence standard of proof requires evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, so that the fact at issue is highly probable.” (Internal quotations marks omitted.)). 2022H., 314 Or App 672, 679 , 499 P3d 851 (2021), rev allowed, 369 Or 504 (2022) (Aoyagi, J., concurring) (noting that the standard under ORS 163A.030 is “forward looking”); State v. N. A. P., 216 Or App 432, 437 , 173 P3d 1251 (2007) (“The clear and convincing evidence standard of proof requires evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, so that the fact at issue is highly probable.” (Internal quotations marks omitted.)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dept. of Human Services v. S. L. F.
neutral
1 sentence2021Cite as 315 Or App 705 (2021) 707 PER CURIAM Mother appeals a judgment terminating her paren- tal rights to three of her children, W, N, and A. On de novo review under a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, see Dept. of Human Services v. T. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. E.D.
green
2 sentences2020D., 264 Or App 71, 73 , 331 P3d 1032 (2014) (“The clear and convincing evidence standard is a rigorous one, requir- ing evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, and which makes the fact in issue highly probable.” (Quoting State v. M. 2020D., 264 Or App 71, 73 , 331 P3d 1032 (2014) (“The clear and convincing evidence standard is a rigorous one, requir- ing evidence that is of extraordinary persuasiveness, and which makes the fact in issue highly probable.” (Quoting State v. M. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Estate of Krueger v. Ropp green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Stonier v. Kronenberger green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. AMR neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. S. R. J. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Shields v. Villareal green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Llewellyn v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. DM green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Ayala green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Rainbolt green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Bernard v. Board of Dental Examiners green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corp. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Willbanks v. Goodwin green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Transamerica Insurance v. Bloomfield green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty. green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Cook v. Michael green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.