11 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fitch v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2025“The clear and convincing evidence standard requires a party with the burden of proof to produce evidence substantially more persuasive than -22- preponderance of the evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing Fitch, 782 S.W.2d at 622 ). 2022As was the case in Vinson, 136 S.W.3d at 469 , “the best interest of the child test appears to have been the decisional basis rather than the clear and convincing evidence standard required in custody disputes between parents and non-parents.” See Fitch v. Burns, 782 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Ky. 1989) (raising concerns although the decision was reversed on other grounds that the wrong -10- standard may have been applied as the family court failed to specify the standard it was applying). | 2 | 3 |
Ns v. C and Msgreen2 sentences2025Furthermore, as noted in the W.H.J. case, this error cannot be deemed harmless, but instead we are “constrain[ed] . . . to vacate this decision without assessing the evidence.” Id. at 56 (citing N.S. v. C & M.S., 642 S.W.2d 589, 590-591 (Ky. 1982)); see also Wright v. Howard, 711 S.W.2d 492, 497 (Ky. App. 1986) (vacating a stepparent adoption decision, in part, due to a trial court’s failure to utilize the clear and convincing evidence standard). 1986Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); N.S. v. C. and M.S., Ky., 642 S.W.2d 589 (1982). | 1 | 2 |
Wright v. Howardgreen1 sentence2025Furthermore, as noted in the W.H.J. case, this error cannot be deemed harmless, but instead we are “constrain[ed] . . . to vacate this decision without assessing the evidence.” Id. at 56 (citing N.S. v. C & M.S., 642 S.W.2d 589, 590-591 (Ky. 1982)); see also Wright v. Howard, 711 S.W.2d 492, 497 (Ky. App. 1986) (vacating a stepparent adoption decision, in part, due to a trial court’s failure to utilize the clear and convincing evidence standard). | 1 | 1 |
Norwich v. Norwichgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Norwich v. Norwich, 459 S.W.3d 889 (Ky. App. 2015) (reviewing de novo trial court’s judgment following bench trial to determine if ruling on fraud claim was supported by clear and convincing evidence); Bishop v. Brock, 610 S.W.3d 347 (Ky. App. 2020) (reviewing de novo trial court’s judgment following bench trial to determine -16- if ruling on adverse possession claim was supported by clear and convincing evidence); Vick v. Elliot, 422 S.W.3d 277 (Ky. App. 2013) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Corbin's Ex'rs v. Corbingreen2 sentences2021While Barnett does not refer to a clear and convincing evidence standard,3 long-standing precedent applies a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof to cases involving alleged oral contracts.4 See Corbin’s Ex’rs v. Corbin, 302 Ky. 208, 213 , 194 S.W.2d 65, 68 (1946) (“The general rule is that where the alleged expressed contract is oral the evidence to support it must be clear and convincing.”). 2021While Barnett does not refer to a clear and convincing evidence standard,3 long-standing precedent applies a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof to cases involving alleged oral contracts.4 See Corbin’s Ex’rs v. Corbin, 302 Ky. 208, 213 , 194 S.W.2d 65, 68 (1946) (“The general rule is that where the alleged expressed contract is oral the evidence to support it must be clear and convincing.”). | 1 | 1 |
Burton v. Foster Wheeler Corp.green1 sentence2020Although the circuit court did not explicitly express that standard, “judges and justices are presumed to know the law[.]” Burton v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 72 S.W.3d 925, 930 (Ky. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Glodo v. Evans
green
1 sentence2025“The clear and convincing evidence standard requires a party with the burden of proof to produce evidence substantially more persuasive than -22- preponderance of the evidence but not beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing Fitch, 782 S.W.2d at 622 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Vick v. Elliot
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., Norwich v. Norwich, 459 S.W.3d 889 (Ky. App. 2015) (reviewing de novo trial court’s judgment following bench trial to determine if ruling on fraud claim was supported by clear and convincing evidence); Bishop v. Brock, 610 S.W.3d 347 (Ky. App. 2020) (reviewing de novo trial court’s judgment following bench trial to determine -16- if ruling on adverse possession claim was supported by clear and convincing evidence); Vick v. Elliot, 422 S.W.3d 277 (Ky. App. 2013) (same). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Vinson v. Sorrell
green
1 sentence2022As was the case in Vinson, 136 S.W.3d at 469 , “the best interest of the child test appears to have been the decisional basis rather than the clear and convincing evidence standard required in custody disputes between parents and non-parents.” See Fitch v. Burns, 782 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Ky. 1989) (raising concerns although the decision was reversed on other grounds that the wrong -10- standard may have been applied as the family court failed to specify the standard it was applying). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Barnett v. Mercy Health Partners-Lourdes, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021However, Barnett does discuss how a plaintiff must show existence of a contract, breach and damages resulting from the breach to prevail on a breach of contract claim. 233 S.W.3d at 727 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Waddle v. Waddle
green
2 sentences2018Id. , 447 S.W.3d at 657 . 2018Id. , 447 S.W.3d at 657 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stovall v. Eastern Baptist Institute
neutral
1 sentence1999Stovall, supra. The question of high unemployment should not be the sole basis for action by a legislative body and it need not be established pursuant to the clear and convincing evidence standard. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Davis v. Collinsworth
green
2 sentences1989Because there is no recent Kentucky case attempting to define precisely what this means, we turn to McCormick on Evidence, 2nd ed., p. 796, Sec. 340(b) (1972), a textbook discussion of "satisfying the burden of persuasion" where there is a "requirement of clear and convincing proof." McCormick states that the "phrasing within most jurisdictions has not become as standardized as is the `preponderance' formula," and that "no high degree of precision can be obtained by these groups of adjectives." He concludes that the best formulation of the various terms that have been used to express this conc 1989Because there is no recent Kentucky case attempting to define precisely what this means, we turn to McCormick on Evidence, 2nd ed., p. 796, Sec. 340(b) (1972), a textbook discussion of “satisfying the burden of persuasion” where there is a “requirement of clear and convincing proof.” McCormick states that the “phrasing within most jurisdictions has not become as standardized as is the ‘preponderance’ formula,” and that “no high degree of precision can be obtained by these groups of adjectives.” He concludes that the best formulation of the various terms that have been used to express this conc | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
2 sentences1986Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); N.S. v. C. and M.S., Ky., 642 S.W.2d 589 (1982). 1986Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); N.S. v. C. and M.S., Ky., 642 S.W.2d 589 (1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.