11 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii 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 |
|---|---|---|
Masaki v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2015The clear and convincing evidence standard requires “that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established, and requires the existence of a fact be highly probable.” Id. at 15 , 780 P.2d at 574 . 2015The clear and convincing evidence standard requires “that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established, and requires the existence of a fact be highly probable.” Id. at 15 , 780 P.2d at 574 . | 1 | 2 |
In the Interest of Doegreen2 sentences2026See In re Doe, 95 Hawaiʻi 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001) (“[I]t is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact.”). 2026See In re Doe, 95 Hawaiʻi 183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001) (“[I]t is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact.”). | 1 | 1 |
Guardianship of Kelvingreen2 sentences2026See Matter of Guardianship of L.Y., 968 N.W.2d 882, 899 (Iowa 2022) (“Because of the liberty interests at stake, the clear and convincing evidence standard is the appropriate one to apply in proceedings to terminate guardianships of minor children established with parental consent.”); Guardianship of Kelvin, 114 N.E.3d 102, 109 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018); Guardianship of Reena D., 35 A.3d at 515. 2026See Matter of Guardianship of L.Y., 968 N.W.2d 882 , 899 (Iowa 2022) (“Because of the liberty interests at stake, the clear and convincing evidence standard is the appropriate one to apply in proceedings to terminate guardianships of minor children established with parental consent.”); Guardianship of Kelvin, 114 N.E.3d 102, 109 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018); Guardianship of Reena D., 35 A.3d at 515. | 1 | 1 |
Woodruff v. Kealegreen2 sentences2025The clear and convincing standard of proof serves "to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases." Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 100, 637 P.2d 760, 770 (1981) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424 (1979)). 2025The clear and convincing standard of proof serves "to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases." Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 100, 637 P.2d 760, 770 (1981) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2025The clear and convincing standard of proof serves "to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases." Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 100 , 637 P.2d 760, 770 (1981) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424 (1979)). 2025The clear and convincing standard of proof serves "to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases." Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 100, 637 P.2d 760, 770 (1981) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Uyeda v. Schermer.green1 sentence2020(Emphasis added.) "The clear and convincing evidence standard is an intermediate standard of proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases." Uyeda v. Schermer, 144 Hawai#i 163, 174, 439 P.3d 115, 126 (2019) (cleaned up) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Iddings v. Mee-Leegreen2 sentences2016Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawai'i 1, 14 , 919 P.2d 263, 276 (1996). 2016Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawai'i 1, 14 , 919 P.2d 263, 276 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Guardianship of Doegreen2 sentences2004The Grandparents first contend the family court erred in deciding whether the natural father 3 was an unfit parent, In re Guardianship of John Doe, 7 Haw.App. 575, 581 , 786 P.2d 519, 523 (1990) (“in a contest between the mother and the paternal grand mother for a child’s custody, the mother must prevail absent a valid finding that she is not a fit and proper person or has a home that is not stable and wholesome”); In re Guardianship of Jane Doe, 93 Hawai'i 374, 381 , 4 P.3d 508, 515 (App.2000) (quoting In re Guardianship of John Doe, supra), because the family court applied the clear and conv 2004The Grandparents first contend the family court erred in deciding whether the natural father 3 was an unfit parent, In re Guardianship of John Doe, 7 Haw.App. 575, 581 , 786 P.2d 519, 523 (1990) (“in a contest between the mother and the paternal grand mother for a child’s custody, the mother must prevail absent a valid finding that she is not a fit and proper person or has a home that is not stable and wholesome”); In re Guardianship of Jane Doe, 93 Hawai'i 374, 381 , 4 P.3d 508, 515 (App.2000) (quoting In re Guardianship of John Doe, supra), because the family court applied the clear and conv | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Guardianship of the Person of Doegreen2 sentences2004The Grandparents first contend the family court erred in deciding whether the natural father 3 was an unfit parent, In re Guardianship of John Doe, 7 Haw.App. 575, 581 , 786 P.2d 519, 523 (1990) (“in a contest between the mother and the paternal grand mother for a child’s custody, the mother must prevail absent a valid finding that she is not a fit and proper person or has a home that is not stable and wholesome”); In re Guardianship of Jane Doe, 93 Hawai'i 374, 381 , 4 P.3d 508, 515 (App.2000) (quoting In re Guardianship of John Doe, supra), because the family court applied the clear and conv 2004The Grandparents first contend the family court erred in deciding whether the natural father 3 was an unfit parent, In re Guardianship of John Doe, 7 Haw.App. 575, 581 , 786 P.2d 519, 523 (1990) (“in a contest between the mother and the paternal grand mother for a child’s custody, the mother must prevail absent a valid finding that she is not a fit and proper person or has a home that is not stable and wholesome”); In re Guardianship of Jane Doe, 93 Hawai'i 374, 381 , 4 P.3d 508, 515 (App.2000) (quoting In re Guardianship of John Doe, supra), because the family court applied the clear and conv | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp
green
2 sentences2019Relations , 113 Hawai'i 1 , 36, 147 P.3d 785 , 820 (2006) (noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp , 70 Haw. 539 , 777 P.2d 710 (1989) (utilizing a clear and convincing standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings). 2019Relations , 113 Hawai'i 1 , 36, 147 P.3d 785 , 820 (2006) (noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp , 70 Haw. 539 , 777 P.2d 710 (1989) (utilizing a clear and convincing standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Tauese v. State, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations
green
2 sentences2019Relations , 113 Hawai'i 1 , 36, 147 P.3d 785 , 820 (2006) (noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp , 70 Haw. 539 , 777 P.2d 710 (1989) (utilizing a clear and convincing standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings). 2019Relations , 113 Hawai'i 1 , 36, 147 P.3d 785 , 820 (2006) (noting that the clear and convincing evidence standard is typically used in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or other quasi-criminal wrongdoing to reduce the risk that a party may have his or her reputation tarnished erroneously); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp , 70 Haw. 539 , 777 P.2d 710 (1989) (utilizing a clear and convincing standard of proof in attorney discipline proceedings). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re the Ishida-Waiakamilo Legacy Trust
green
2 sentences2017In re Ishida Waiakamilo Legacy Trust, 138 Hawai'i at 107 , 377 P.3d at 48 . 2017In re Ishida Waiakamilo Legacy Trust, 138 Hawai'i at 107 , 377 P.3d at 48 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Coyle v. Compton
green
2 sentences2011In Coyle, for example, the supreme court held that imposing the preponderance of the evidence standard at the TRO hearing, rather than the clear and convincing evidence standard, did not violate the defendant’s equal protection or substantive due process rights. 85 Hawai'i at 206-08 , 940 P.2d at 413-15 . 2011In Coyle, for example, the supreme court held that imposing the preponderance of the evidence standard at the TRO hearing, rather than the clear and convincing evidence standard, did not violate the defendant’s equal protection or substantive due process rights. 85 Hawai'i at 206-08 , 940 P.2d at 413-15 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
W. H. Jones v. Raymond Jones
neutral
1 sentence1963Defendant makes the point that a finding of a parol gift “is justified and sustainable under the clear and convincing evidence rule even though the testimony be in sharp conflict,” citing Jones v. Jones, 250 F.2d 454 (9th Cir.); Davenport v. Board of Education of City of Drum right, 204 Okla. 356 , 230 P.2d 271 ; Bentz v. Esterling, 76 S.D. 331 , 78 N.W.2d 73 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Davenport v. Board of Education of City of Drumright
neutral
2 sentences1963Defendant makes the point that a finding of a parol gift “is justified and sustainable under the clear and convincing evidence rule even though the testimony be in sharp conflict,” citing Jones v. Jones, 250 F.2d 454 (9th Cir.); Davenport v. Board of Education of City of Drum right, 204 Okla. 356 , 230 P.2d 271 ; Bentz v. Esterling, 76 S.D. 331 , 78 N.W.2d 73 . 1963Defendant makes the point that a finding of a parol gift “is justified and sustainable under the clear and convincing evidence rule even though the testimony be in sharp conflict,” citing Jones v. Jones, 250 F.2d 454 (9th Cir.); Davenport v. Board of Education of City of Drum right, 204 Okla. 356 , 230 P.2d 271 ; Bentz v. Esterling, 76 S.D. 331 , 78 N.W.2d 73 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Bentz v. Esterling
green
2 sentences1963Defendant makes the point that a finding of a parol gift “is justified and sustainable under the clear and convincing evidence rule even though the testimony be in sharp conflict,” citing Jones v. Jones, 250 F.2d 454 (9th Cir.); Davenport v. Board of Education of City of Drum right, 204 Okla. 356 , 230 P.2d 271 ; Bentz v. Esterling, 76 S.D. 331 , 78 N.W.2d 73 . 1963Defendant makes the point that a finding of a parol gift “is justified and sustainable under the clear and convincing evidence rule even though the testimony be in sharp conflict,” citing Jones v. Jones, 250 F.2d 454 (9th Cir.); Davenport v. Board of Education of City of Drum right, 204 Okla. 356 , 230 P.2d 271 ; Bentz v. Esterling, 76 S.D. 331 , 78 N.W.2d 73 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.