evidence as satisfying standard (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

evidence as satisfying standard in California

10 California opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2026 8 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Christopher T.green
calctapp · 2012 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2024
2 sentences

2024(In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 (Hailey T.).) The question before us is not whether we regard the evidence supporting the court’s order is clear and convincing; “it is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1009 (Conservatorship of O.B.).) We view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order and indulge in reasonable inferences that the juvenile court might have drawn from the evidence.

2023(In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 (Hailey T.).) The question before us is not whether we regard the evidence supporting the court’s order is clear and convincing; “it is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1009 (Conservatorship of O.B.).) We view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order and indulge in reasonable inferences that the juvenile court might have drawn from the evidence.

22
People v. Gomezgreen
cal · 2018 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020(See, e.g., People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16 , 35-36; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 278, 307 .) To paraphrase the high court in Jackson, supra, 443 U.S. at page 318 , the question before a court reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence is not whether the appellate court itself regards the evidence as clear and convincing; it is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.

2020(See, e.g., People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 35-36 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 278, 307 .) To paraphrase the high court in Jackson, supra, 443 U.S. at page 318 , the question before a court reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence is not whether the appellate court itself regards the evidence as clear and convincing; it is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
KATIE v. v. SUPERIOR COURT green
calctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2026(Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598 .) “In general, when presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence associated with a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence, the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1005.) In other words, “the question before a court reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing e

2025(Katie V. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 586, 598 .) “In general, when presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence associated with a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence, the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of 18 fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1005.) In other words, “the question before a court reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincin

42023–2026
People v. Ware green
cal · 2022
2 sentences

2026(People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 167 .) The question “is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1009.) We begin with Investigator Blinn’s testimony that 75 percent of adults who send explicit images to undercover law enforcement agents posing as children online will arrange a meeting and show up with the intent to have a sexual relationship.

2026(People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 167 .) The question “is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1009.) We begin with Investigator Blinn’s testimony that 75 percent of adults who send explicit images to undercover law enforcement agents posing as children online will arrange a meeting and show up with the intent to have a sexual relationship.

22026–2026
Jackson v. Virginia red
scotus · 1979
2 sentences

2020(See, e.g., People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 35-36 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 278, 307 .) To paraphrase the high court in Jackson, supra, 443 U.S. at page 318 , the question before a court reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence is not whether the appellate court itself regards the evidence as clear and convincing; it is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.

2020(See, e.g., People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 35-36 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 278, 307 .) To paraphrase the high court in Jackson, supra, 443 U.S. at page 318 , the question before a court reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence is not whether the appellate court itself regards the evidence as clear and convincing; it is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.

22020–2020
People v. Veamatahau green
cal · 2020
2 sentences

2020(See, e.g., People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16 , 35-36; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 278, 307 .) To paraphrase the high court in Jackson, supra, 443 U.S. at page 318 , the question before a court reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence is not whether the appellate court itself regards the evidence as clear and convincing; it is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.

2020(See, e.g., People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 35-36 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 278, 307 .) To paraphrase the high court in Jackson, supra, 443 U.S. at page 318 , the question before a court reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence is not whether the appellate court itself regards the evidence as clear and convincing; it is whether a reasonable trier of fact could have regarded the evidence as satisfying this standard of proof.

22020–2020

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check