clear and convincing evidentiary standard in California

2018If the plaintiff is going to prevail on a punitive damages claim, he or she can only do so by establishing malice, oppression or fraud by clear and convincing evidence"].) Under the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must be " ' " 'so clear as to leave no substantial doubt' " ' " and " ' " 'sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.' " ' " ( Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847 , 891, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 .) Although the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is a stringent one, "it does not i

2018If the plaintiff is going to prevail on a punitive damages claim, he or she can only do so by establishing malice, oppression or fraud by clear and convincing evidence"].) Under the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must be " ' " 'so clear as to leave no substantial doubt' " ' " and " ' " 'sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.' " ' " ( Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847 , 891, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 .) Although the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is a stringent one, "it does not i

1998Had the Legislature wished to extend to the court unfettered discretion to fashion placement practices such as this, it would not have described the permissible options with such specificity in the several relevant code sections." ( In re Damonte A, supra, 57 Cal. App.4th at p. 900 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 369 .) [3] We agree.

1998Had the Legislature wished to extend to the court unfettered discretion to fashion placement practices such as this, it would not have described the permissible options with such specificity in the several relevant code sections." ( In re Damonte A, supra, 57 Cal. App.4th at p. 900 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 369 .) [3] We agree.

2021Specifically, petitioner asked the trial court to “apply the clear and convincing evidentiary standard to the issue whether the [b]oard was unlikely to prevail on the merits, consistent with the holding in [Conservatorship of] O.B.” The trial court denied the application for reconsideration without explanation, citing only section 1008, subdivisions (a) and (e), section 1094.5, subdivisions (c) and (h), and Chamberlain for “ ‘the standard of proof in the original administrative proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the standard of proof applicable to a review of such proceedings.’ ”4 (Citing Cha

2021Specifically, petitioner asked the trial court to “apply the clear and convincing evidentiary standard to the issue whether the [b]oard was unlikely to prevail on the merits, consistent with the holding in [Conservatorship of] O.B.” The trial court denied the application for reconsideration without explanation, citing only section 1008, subdivisions (a) and (e), section 1094.5, subdivisions (c) and (h), and Chamberlain for “ ‘the standard of proof in the original administrative proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the standard of proof applicable to a review of such proceedings.’ ”4 (Citing Cha

2014As our analysis on the merits results in relief for mother, we need not resolve this difficulty. 24 disfigurement, permanent physical disability, or death; any single act of sexual abuse which causes significant bleeding, deep bruising, or significant external or internal swelling; or more than one act of physical abuse, each of which causes bleeding, deep bruising, significant external or internal swelling, bone fracture, or unconsciousness; or the willful, prolonged failure to provide adequate food.” (§ 300, subd. (e).) “Section 300, subdivision (e), and subdivision (b)(5) of section 361.5,

2013A dispositional order removing a child from a parent’s custody is reviewed for substantial evidence under a clear and convincing evidentiary standard. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re Noe F. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 358, 367 ; In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 .) We begin by noting that the juvenile court order dismissing the domestic violence count was erroneous.

2013A dispositional order removing a child from a parent’s custody is reviewed for substantial evidence under a clear and convincing evidentiary standard. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re Noe F. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 358, 367 ; In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 .) We begin by noting that the juvenile court order dismissing the domestic violence count was erroneous.

2001In Looney v. Superior Court, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th 521 , the Court of Appeal held that in determining whether to permit a claim for punitive damages against a health care provider pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure *1120 section 425.13, subdivision (a), 9 the evidence presented must be evaluated with the clear and convincing evidentiary standard in mind.