preponderance of the evidence standard in North Carolina

2025This evidentiary standard is an intermediate standard “greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases, but not as stringent as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases.” Id. at 109-110 , 316 S.E.2d at 252 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 71 L.

2025This evidentiary standard is an intermediate standard “greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases, but not as stringent as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases.” Id. at 109-110 , 316 S.E.2d at 252 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 71 L.

2026The “clear and convincing” burden of proof and standard of review “is greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases.” In re Smith, 146 N.C.

2024The “clear and convincing” standard of review “is greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases.” In re Smith, 146 N.C.

2024“This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” Id. at 721, 693 S.E.2d at 643 (citing Williams v. Blue Ridge Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 207 N.C. 362 , 363–64, 177 S.E. 176, 177 (1934)).

2024The clear and convincing standard “is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases” and “requires evidence that should fully convince.” In re I.K., 377 N.C. 417 , 421 (2021) (emphasis added) (quoting Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 (2009)).

2024“This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” Id. at 721, 693 S.E.2d at 643 (citing Williams v. Blue Ridge Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 207 N.C. 362 , 363–64, 177 S.E. 176, 177 (1934)).

2024“This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” Id. at 721, 693 S.E.2d at 643 (citing Williams v. Blue Ridge Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 207 N.C. 362 , 363–64, 177 S.E. 176, 177 (1934)).

2020Our inquiry as a reviewing court is whether the evidence presented is such that a fact-finder applying that evidentiary standard could reasonably find the fact in question.” Id. at 533 , 786 S.E.2d at 734 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted).

2017This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters." In re A.C. , --- N.C. at ----, 786 S.E.2d at 734 (citing Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc., 363 N.C. 715 , 721, 693 S.E.2d 640 , 643 (2009), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 , 131 S.Ct. 2456 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1211 (2011) ).

2025This evidentiary standard is an intermediate standard “greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases, but not as stringent as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases.” Id. at 109-110 , 316 S.E.2d at 252 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 71 L.

2025This evidentiary standard is an intermediate standard “greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases, but not as stringent as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases.” Id. at 109-110 , 316 S.E.2d at 252 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 71 L.

2010Id.

2010Id.

2022“This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard[.]” Id. (quoting Scarborough, 363 N.C. at 721 ). ¶ 17 Finally, as a matter of issue preservation, it remains true that while “a constitutional question which is not raised and passed upon in the trial court will not ordinarily be considered on appeal[,]” State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 322 (1988) (quoting State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 (1982)), this does not mean that IN RE J.N. & L.N. 2022-NCSC-52 Earls, J., concurring constitutional issues may never be raised in the first instance on appeal.

2022“This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard[.]” Id. (quoting Scarborough, 363 N.C. at 721 ). ¶ 17 Finally, as a matter of issue preservation, it remains true that while “a constitutional question which is not raised and passed upon in the trial court will not ordinarily be considered on appeal[,]” State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 322 (1988) (quoting State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 (1982)), this does not mean that IN RE J.N. & L.N. 2022-NCSC-52 Earls, J., concurring constitutional issues may never be raised in the first instance on appeal.

2022“This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard[.]” Id. (quoting Scarborough, 363 N.C. at 721 ). ¶ 17 Finally, as a matter of issue preservation, it remains true that while “a constitutional question which is not raised and passed upon in the trial court will not ordinarily be considered on appeal[,]” State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 322 (1988) (quoting State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 (1982)), this does not mean that IN RE J.N. & L.N. 2022-NCSC-52 Earls, J., concurring constitutional issues may never be raised in the first instance on appeal.

2022“This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard[.]” Id. (quoting Scarborough, 363 N.C. at 721 ). ¶ 17 Finally, as a matter of issue preservation, it remains true that while “a constitutional question which is not raised and passed upon in the trial court will not ordinarily be considered on appeal[,]” State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 322 (1988) (quoting State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112 (1982)), this does not mean that IN RE J.N. & L.N. 2022-NCSC-52 Earls, J., concurring constitutional issues may never be raised in the first instance on appeal.

2021See Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549 (2010); Adams, 354 N.C. at 65–66.

2021See Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549 (2010); Adams, 354 N.C. at 65–66.

2021This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 (2009) (cleaned up) (first quoting In re Will of McCauley, 356 N.C. 91, 101 (2002); then quoting Williams v. Blue Ridge Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 207 N.C. 362 , 363–64 (1934)), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 (2011). ¶ 20 The trial court’s legal conclusion that a parent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent is reviewed de novo

2021This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” Scarborough v. Dillard’s, Inc., 363 N.C. 715, 721 (2009) (cleaned up) (first quoting In re Will of McCauley, 356 N.C. 91, 101 (2002); then quoting Williams v. Blue Ridge Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 207 N.C. 362 , 363–64 (1934)), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 988 (2011). ¶ 20 The trial court’s legal conclusion that a parent acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent is reviewed de novo

2011“The clear and convincing evidence standard is greater than a preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases, and requires evidence which should fully convince.” Schenk v. HNA Holdings, Inc., 170 N.C.

2008"The clear and convincing evidence standard is greater than a preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases and requires `evidence which should "fully convince."'" Schenk, 170 N.C.App. at 560 , 613 S.E.2d at 508 (citation omitted).

1982See State v. Johnson, 304 N.C. 680 , 285 S.E.2d 792 (1982); State v. Byrd, 35 N.C.App. 42 , 240 S.E.2d 494 (1978).

1982See State v. Johnson, 304 N.C. 680 , 285 S.E. 2d 792 (1982); State v. Byrd, 35 N.C.

2025This burden is more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” In re K.L., 254 N.C.

2020Such findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, which is “more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard generally applied in civil cases, but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal matters.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2007In re Huff, 140 N.C.App. 288, 291 , 536 S.E.2d 838, 840 (2000), disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 353 N.C. 374 , 547 S.E.2d 9 (2001). *53 "This intermediate standard is greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases, but not as stringent as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases." In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 109-10 , 316 S.E.2d 246, 252 (1984) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)).

2007In re Huff, 140 N.C.App. 288, 291 , 536 S.E.2d 838, 840 (2000), disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 353 N.C. 374 , 547 S.E.2d 9 (2001). *53 "This intermediate standard is greater than the preponderance of the evidence standard required in most civil cases, but not as stringent as the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases." In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 109-10 , 316 S.E.2d 246, 252 (1984) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)).

2007"The trial court's `conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.'" In re D.M.M., 179 N.C.App. 383 , ___, 633 S.E.2d 715 , 716 (2006) (quoting In re D.H., 177 N.C.App. 700 , 703, 629 S.E.2d 920 , 922 (2006)).

2007"The trial court's `conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.'" In re D.M.M., 179 N.C.App. 383 , ___, 633 S.E.2d 715, 716 (2006) (quoting In re D.H., 177 N.C.App. 700, 703 , 629 S.E.2d 920, 922 (2006)).

2007"The trial court's `conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.'" In re D.M.M., 179 N.C.App. 383 , ___, 633 S.E.2d 715 , 716 (2006) (quoting In re D.H., 177 N.C.App. 700 , 703, 629 S.E.2d 920 , 922 (2006)).

2007"The trial court's `conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.'" In re D.M.M., 179 N.C.App. 383 , ___, 633 S.E.2d 715, 716 (2006) (quoting In re D.H., 177 N.C.App. 700, 703 , 629 S.E.2d 920, 922 (2006)).