clear and convincing evidence standard in Tennessee

2026“The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard ensures that the facts are established as highly probable, rather than as simply more probable than not.” Id. (citing In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)).

2026“Evidence satisfying the clear and convincing evidence standard establishes that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable and eliminates any serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d at 861 (citations omitted).

2026In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

2024The clear-and- convincing-evidence standard ensures that the facts are established as highly probable, rather than as simply more probable than not. /n re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005); In re M.A.R., 183 S.W.3d 652, 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). ae ko In light of the heightened burden of proof in termination proceedings, however, the reviewing court must make its own determination as to whether the facts, either as found by the trial court or as supported by a preponderance of the evidence, amount to clear and convincing evidence of the elements necessary to terminate paren

2015In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 546 ; In re S.M., 149 S.W.3d 632, 639 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

2014In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 546 ; In re S.M., 149 S.W.3d 632, 639 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).

2022Moreover, as we have explained regarding the applicable standard of review: Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, it is important to “distinguish between the specific facts found by the trial court and the combined weight of those facts.” In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2020In the first instance, as explained by this Court in In re S.J., 387 S.W.3d 576, 591-92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012): Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, it is important to “distinguish between the specific facts found by the trial court and the combined weight of those facts.” In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2023The clear and convincing evidence standard, a higher level of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard, “eliminates any serious or substantial doubt concerning the correctness of the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence” and “should produce in the fact-finder’s mind a firm belief or conviction with regard to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” O’Daniel v. Messier, 905 S.W.2d 182, 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

2010This court has defined the clear and convincing evidence standard as being “more exacting than the preponderance of the evidence standard” but not -7- requiring “such certainty as the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.” O’Daniel v. Messier, 905 S.W.2d 182, 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).

2026To be clear and convincing, the evidence must eliminate any substantial doubt and produce in the fact- finder’s mind a firm conviction as to the truth.” In re S.R.C., 156 S.W.3d 26, 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (internal citation omitted).

2026To be clear and convincing, the evidence must eliminate any substantial doubt and produce in the fact- finder’s mind a firm conviction as to the truth.” In re S.R.C., 156 S.W.3d 26, 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (internal citation omitted).

2025Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, there must be “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Hodges v. S.C.

2024The clear and convincing evidence standard eliminates any “serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Hodges v. S.C.

2016Lettner v. Plummer, 559 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Tenn.1977); Goldsmith v. Roberts, 622 S.W.2d 438, 441 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981); Brandon v. Wright, 838 S.W.2d at 536 ; see also In re B.N.T., No. W2007-01627-COA-R3-PT, 2008 WL 2095468 , at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2008).

2006O’Daniel v. Messier, 905 S.W.2d 182, 188 (Tenn. App. 1995); Brandon v. Wright, 838 S.W.2d 532, 536 (Tenn. App. 1992).

2020As a reviewing court, we “must ‘distinguish between the specific facts found by the trial court and the combined weight of those facts.”’ In re Keri C., 384 S.W.3d 731, 744 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)).

2018“Simply proving that a parent did not pay financial support for her child during the pertinent four-month period is not sufficient to show willful failure to support.” In re Keri C., 384 S.W.3d 731, 746 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted). - -6- In this case, we are of the opinion that the proof on this issue fails to satisfy the scrutiny imposed by the clear and convincing evidence standard.

2016The clear and convincing evidence standard defies precise definition, Majors v. Smith, 776 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), but has been described as a “high evidentiary burden.” In re Alex B.T., No. W2011-00511-COA- R3PT, 2011 WL 5549757 , at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2011); see also In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (explaining the need for the “heightened” standard of proof as due to the stakes of a termination proceeding being “so profoundly high”); Gates v. Williams, No. E2010-01192-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 683935 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2011) (describing th

2016The clear and convincing evidence standard defies precise definition, Majors v. Smith, 776 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), but has been described as a “high evidentiary burden.” In re Alex B.T., No. W2011-00511-COA- R3PT, 2011 WL 5549757 , at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2011); see also In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (explaining the need for the “heightened” standard of proof as due to the stakes of a termination proceeding being “so profoundly high”); Gates v. Williams, No. E2010-01192-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 683935 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2011) (describing th

2026“The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard ensures that the facts are established as highly probable, rather than as simply more probable than not.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 522 (Tenn. 2016).

2026The clear and convincing evidence standard requires the elimination of “any serious or substantial doubt.” In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d at 522 .

2009In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002); In re C.D.B., 37 S.W.3d 925 , 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

2005Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 , 901 n.3 (Tenn. 1992); In re C.D.B., 37 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

2005This Court has previously described the clear and convincing evidence standard in the following terms: Evidence that satisfies this heightened burden of proof eliminates any serious or substantial doubt concerning the correctness of the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956, 960 (Tenn. 1997); Hodges v. S.C.

2005This Court has previously described the clear and convincing evidence standard in the following terms: Evidence that satisfies this heightened burden of proof eliminates any serious or substantial doubt concerning the correctness of the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956, 960 (Tenn. 1997); Hodges v. S.C.

2010In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d at 474 ; Matter of M.W.A., Jr., 980 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

2010In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d at 474 ; Matter of M.W.A., Jr., 980 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

2025In defining this clear and convincing standard, the court concluded that “to toll the coram nobis statute of limitations, the new evidence of actual innocence, if credited, should leave the court with no serious or substantial doubt that the petitioner is actually innocent.” Id. at 408; see State v. Jones, 450 S.W.3d 866, 893 (Tenn. 2014) (“The clear and convincing evidence standard is more exacting than preponderance of the evidence but less exacting than beyond a reasonable doubt, and it requires that there [be] no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn f

2024The clear and convincing evidence standard is more exacting than preponderance of the evidence but less exacting than beyond a reasonable doubt, and it requires that there [be] no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence. - 11 - Id. at 408 (quoting State v. Jones, 450 S.W.3d 866, 893 (Tenn. 2014)).

2015Our Supreme Court has instructed: “the clear and convincing evidence standard requires that the truth be highly probable. „Clear and convincing evidence means evidence in which there is no serious or 12 substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.‟” Teter v. Republic Parking Sys., Inc., 181 S.W.3d 330, 341 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting Hodges v. S.C.

2008In contrast to the "preponderance of the evidence standard," clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the truth of the facts asserted is "highly probable,” as opposed to "more probable than not.” Teter v. Republic Parking Sys., Inc., 181 S.W.3d 330, 341 (Tenn.2005) (holding that "the clear and convincing evidence standard requires that the truth be highly probable"); Hibdon v. Grabowski, 195 S.W.3d 48, 62-63 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005). .

2015In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d 467, 474 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). •The clear and convincing evidence standard defies precise definition.

2006Evidence satisfying the clear and convincing evidence standard establishes that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable, In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d at 474 , and eliminates any serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

2020In the first instance, as explained by this Court in In re S.J., 387 S.W.3d 576, 591-92 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012): Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, it is important to “distinguish between the specific facts found by the trial court and the combined weight of those facts.” In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 156 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

2017“In contrast to the preponderance of the evidence standard, clear and convincing evidence should demonstrate that the truth of the facts asserted is ‘highly probable’ as opposed to merely ‘more probable’ than not.” In re S.J., 387 S.W.3d 576, 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

2026“The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard ensures that the facts are established as highly probable, rather than as simply more probable than not.” Id. (citing In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)).

2026“The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard ensures that the facts are established as highly probable, rather than as simply more probable than not.” Id. (citing In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)).

2020The Legislature has set out a list of factors at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(i) for the courts to follow in determining the child’s best interest.11 The list of factors in the statute “is not exhaustive, and the statute does not require every factor to appear before a court can find that termination is in a child’s best interest.” In re S.L.A., 223 S.W.3d 295, 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Tenn. Dept. of Children’s Svcs. v. T.S.W., No. M2001-01735-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 970434 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002); In re I.C.G., No. E2006-00746-COA-R3- PT, 2006 WL 3077510 , at *4

2018The legislature has set out a list of factors at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(i) for the courts to follow in determining the child’s best interest.5 The list of factors in the statute “is not exhaustive, and the statute does not require every factor to appear before a court can find that termination is in a child’s best interest.” In re S.L.A., 223 S.W.3d 295, 301 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Tenn. Dept. of Children’s Svcs. v. T.S.W., No. M2001-01735-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 970434 , at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 10, 2002); In re I.C.G., No. E2006-00746-COA-R3- PT, 2006 WL 3077510 , at *4

2024The clear and convincing evidence standard is more exacting than preponderance of the evidence but less exacting than beyond a reasonable doubt, and it requires that “‘there [be] no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.’” State v. Kennedy, 152 S.W.3d 16, 18 (Tenn. Crim.

2015“The clear and convincing evidence standard is more exacting than preponderance of the evidence but less exacting than beyond a reasonable doubt, and it requires that „there [be] no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.‟” Jones, 450 S.W.3d at 893 (quoting State v. Kennedy, 152 S.W.3d 16, 18 (Tenn. Crim.

2024Cf. Sanford v. Waugh & Co., 328 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Tenn. 2010) (explaining that, because punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence, in reviewing a motion for directed verdict on punitive damages, “a court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence, using the clear and convincing evidence standard, to submit the punitive damage claim to the jury” (quoting Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008))).

2010Consequently, “[w]hen presented with a motion seeking a directed verdict on a punitive damage claim, a court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence, using the clear and convincing evidence standard, to submit the punitive damage claim to the jury.” Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 207 (Tenn.Ct.App.2008); accord Hughes v. Lumbermens Mut.

2024Cf. Sanford v. Waugh & Co., 328 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Tenn. 2010) (explaining that, because punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence, in reviewing a motion for directed verdict on punitive damages, “a court must determine whether there is sufficient evidence, using the clear and convincing evidence standard, to submit the punitive damage claim to the jury” (quoting Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008))).

2011Sanford v. Waugh & Co., Inc., 328 S.W.3d 836, 848 (Tenn. 2010)(citations omitted).

2009In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 496 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), and eliminates any serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

2007Evidence satisfying the clear and convincing evidence standard establishes that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable, In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 496 (Tenn.Ct.App.2005), and eliminates any serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

2008Estate of Acuff, 56 S.W.3d at 536 ....

2005After correctly stating the clear and convincing evidence rule, the majority opinion states, “it is under this heightened standard of review that we must review the trial court’s findings, in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(d) which directs that appellate review of non-jury cases is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s factual findings.” For reasons stated at length in Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger 56 S.W. 3d 527, 533-37 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. October 1, 20

2025Id. at 408 (quoting State v. Jones, 450 S.W.3d 866, 893 (Tenn. 2014)).

2025The court also held that in assessing a tolling request, the coram nobis court “should first assume arguendo that the new evidence cited in the coram nobis petition is credible, and then determine whether it would clearly and convincingly show that the petitioner ‘did not commit the crime.’” Clardy, 691 S.W.3d at 408 (footnote omitted) (quoting Keen v. State, 398 S.W.3d 594, 612 (Tenn. 2012) (holding that “actually innocent of the offense” means “nothing other than that the person did not commit the crime”).

2019Cumulus Broad., 226 S.W.3d at 376-77 (internal citations omitted).3 3 As noted in Logan I, statutory provisions regarding adverse possession in Tennessee, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 28-2-101 to -103 (2017), in contrast to common law adverse possession, “provide rights that ‘may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner.’” Logan I, 2016 WL 5344526 , at *10 n.5 (quoting Cumulus Broad., 226 S.W.3d at 376 )). 19 Concerning the clear and convincing evidence standard, our Supreme Court has elucidated: The “clear and convincing” st

2019Cumulus Broad., 226 S.W.3d at 376-77 (internal citations omitted).3 3 As noted in Logan I, statutory provisions regarding adverse possession in Tennessee, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 28-2-101 to -103 (2017), in contrast to common law adverse possession, “provide rights that ‘may be utilized by the adverse holder only in the defense of a suit and not as a means to bar use by the rightful owner.’” Logan I, 2016 WL 5344526 , at *10 n.5 (quoting Cumulus Broad., 226 S.W.3d at 376 )). 19 Concerning the clear and convincing evidence standard, our Supreme Court has elucidated: The “clear and convincing” st

2018See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 345-351 (1990) (concluding that crime of which the defendant was acquitted was not barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because “acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the Government from relitigating an issue when it is presented in a subsequent action governed by a lower standard of proof”); Shropshire, 45 S.W.3d at 76 n.8 (noting that Holman is a minority position and that the standard of proof for a conviction is higher than that for admitting evidence under Rule 404(b)).

2012State v. Shropshire, 45 S.W.3d 64, 75-76 (Tenn. Crim.