Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
63 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Siskindgreen2 sentences2011Rule 16-757(b); 4 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007). “ ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Id., 930 A.2d at 335 (citations omitted). “ “We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 706 , 4 A.3d 957, 964 (2010) (citation omitted). 2011Rule 16-757(b); 4 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007). “ ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Id., 930 A.2d at 335 (citations omitted). “ “We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 706 , 4 A.3d 957, 964 (2010) (citation omitted). | 6 | 6 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Wardgreen2 sentences2009We have omitted from our recitation of Judge Souder's conclusions of law the text of the various rule violations. 14 . " ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1,16 , 904 A.2d 477, 486 (2006)). 15 . 2009We have omitted from our recitation of Judge Souder's conclusions of law the text of the various rule violations. 14 . " ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1,16 , 904 A.2d 477, 486 (2006)). 15 . | 4 | 4 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mooneygreen2 sentences2023Mooney, 359 Md. at 79 (explaining that clear and convincing means “a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue”) (quoting Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302 ). 2023Mooney, 359 Md. at 79 (explaining that clear and convincing means “a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue”) (quoting Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302 ). | 3 | 3 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tankogreen2 sentences2015“In that regard, we examine the record to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support the hearing judge’s legal conclusions, by a clear and convincing standard of proof.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15, 27-28 , 45 A.3d 281, 288 (2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2015“In that regard, we examine the record to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support the hearing judge’s legal conclusions, by a clear and convincing standard of proof.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15, 27-28 , 45 A.3d 281, 288 (2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 3 |
Weisman v. Connorsgreen2 sentences2006See also Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370, 374 , 620 A.2d 295, 297 (1993) (noting that the terms "preponderance,” "clear and convincing,” and "reasonable doubt” are not “at least in their legal sense, street familiar")) Weisman v. Connors, 76 Md.App. 488, 503 , 547 A.2d 636, 643 (1988) (noting the "amorphous” nature of the clear and convincing standard); Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F.2d 1153, 1158-59 (4th Cir.1971), cert. dismissed, sub nom. 2006See also Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370, 374 , 620 A.2d 295, 297 (1993) (noting that the terms "preponderance,” "clear and convincing,” and "reasonable doubt” are not “at least in their legal sense, street familiar")) Weisman v. Connors, 76 Md.App. 488, 503 , 547 A.2d 636, 643 (1988) (noting the "amorphous” nature of the clear and convincing standard); Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F.2d 1153, 1158-59 (4th Cir.1971), cert. dismissed, sub nom. | 2 | 3 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2023But our review of the record does not show that anyone disputed that [the client] owned the funds, or that [the children] 23 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523, 550-51 (2014) (explaining that because “[t]he well-pleaded averments in the PDRA … were not denied” and an “Order of Default was entered in the case, and not vacated,” this Court would “accept those averments as admitted,” and determining, “[b]ased on the deemed admissions, … that the admitted facts are sufficient, to a clear and convincing standard, to warrant concluding that Respondent [committed the charged Rules viola 2023But our review of the record does not show that anyone disputed that [the client] owned the funds, or that [the children] 23 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523, 550-51 (2014) (explaining that because “[t]he well-pleaded averments in the PDRA … were not denied” and an “Order of Default was entered in the case, and not vacated,” this Court would “accept those averments as admitted,” and determining, “[b]ased on the deemed admissions, … that the admitted facts are sufficient, to a clear and convincing standard, to warrant concluding that Respondent [committed the charged Rules viola | 2 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences2023Thus, notwithstanding the Order of Default that the hearing judge entered in this case, we must “turn our attention to whether the admitted facts were sufficient by a clear and convincing standard to warrant the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McLaughlin, 456 Md. 172, 191 (2017).7 See also 7 In McLaughlin, after entering an Order of Default, the hearing judge in that case “found that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary” and further found “that the admitted facts were ‘sufficient by a clear and convincing standard’ to justify the court’s conclusions of law t 2023Thus, notwithstanding the Order of Default that the hearing judge entered in this case, we must “turn our attention to whether the admitted facts were sufficient by a clear and convincing standard to warrant the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McLaughlin, 456 Md. 172, 191 (2017).7 See also 7 In McLaughlin, after entering an Order of Default, the hearing judge in that case “found that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary” and further found “that the admitted facts were ‘sufficient by a clear and convincing standard’ to justify the court’s conclusions of law t | 2 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Coccogreen2 sentences2015Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Cocco, 442 Md. 1, 8 , 109 A.3d 1176, 1180 (2015) (ellipses in original) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2015Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Cocco, 442 Md. 1, 8 , 109 A.3d 1176, 1180 (2015) (ellipses in original) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Fishergreen2 sentences2015Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky.2014) (there was no "reasonable certainty” the verdict would be different if CBLA evidence was excluded at new trial); Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Ky.2006) (rejecting CBLA under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)], but not finding a due process violation); Scott v. State, 788 N.W.2d 497, 502 (Minn.2010) (finding that studies discrediting CBLA evidence "[d]id not establish, by the clear and convincing standard, [defendant’s] innocence”); and Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , 2015Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky.2014) (there was no "reasonable certainty” the verdict would be different if CBLA evidence was excluded at new trial); Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Ky.2006) (rejecting CBLA under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)], but not finding a due process violation); Scott v. State, 788 N.W.2d 497, 502 (Minn.2010) (finding that studies discrediting CBLA evidence "[d]id not establish, by the clear and convincing standard, [defendant’s] innocence”); and Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , | 2 | 2 |
Ragland v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2015Clair v. Commonwealth, ___ S.W.3d ____, 2014 WL 4113014 (Ky. 2014) (there was no “reasonable certainty” the verdict would be different if CBLA evidence was excluded at new trial); Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Ky. 2006) (rejecting CBLA under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)], but not finding a due process violation); Scott, supra, 788 N.W.2d at 502 (Minn. 2010) (finding that studies discrediting CBLA evidence “[d]id not establish, by the clear and convincing standard, [defendant’s] innocence”); and Commonwealth v. Fisher, 870 A.2d 864, 870-72 (Pa. 2005) 2015Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky.2014) (there was no "reasonable certainty” the verdict would be different if CBLA evidence was excluded at new trial); Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Ky.2006) (rejecting CBLA under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)], but not finding a due process violation); Scott v. State, 788 N.W.2d 497, 502 (Minn.2010) (finding that studies discrediting CBLA evidence "[d]id not establish, by the clear and convincing standard, [defendant’s] innocence”); and Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , | 2 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edibgreen2 sentences2011Rule 16-757(b); 4 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007). “ ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Id., 930 A.2d at 335 (citations omitted). “ “We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 706 , 4 A.3d 957, 964 (2010) (citation omitted). 2011Rule 16-757(b); 4 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007). “ ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Id., 930 A.2d at 335 (citations omitted). “ “We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 706 , 4 A.3d 957, 964 (2010) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ugwuonyegreen2 sentences2009Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351, 368 , 952 A.2d 226, 235-36 (2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). *301 “[T]he hearing judge must ‘apply the clear and convincing standard of proof when weighing the evidence’ ” in order to find the facts. 2009Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351, 368 , 952 A.2d 226, 235-36 (2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). *301 “[T]he hearing judge must ‘apply the clear and convincing standard of proof when weighing the evidence’ ” in order to find the facts. | 2 | 2 |
Wills v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See also Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370, 374 , 620 A.2d 295, 297 (1993) (noting that the terms "preponderance,” "clear and convincing,” and "reasonable doubt” are not “at least in their legal sense, street familiar")) Weisman v. Connors, 76 Md.App. 488, 503 , 547 A.2d 636, 643 (1988) (noting the "amorphous” nature of the clear and convincing standard); Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F.2d 1153, 1158-59 (4th Cir.1971), cert. dismissed, sub nom. 2006See also Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370, 374 , 620 A.2d 295, 297 (1993) (noting that the terms "preponderance,” "clear and convincing,” and "reasonable doubt” are not “at least in their legal sense, street familiar")) Weisman v. Connors, 76 Md.App. 488, 503 , 547 A.2d 636, 643 (1988) (noting the "amorphous” nature of the clear and convincing standard); Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F.2d 1153, 1158-59 (4th Cir.1971), cert. dismissed, sub nom. | 2 | 2 |
Tippett v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2006See also Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370, 374 , 620 A.2d 295, 297 (1993) (noting that the terms "preponderance,” "clear and convincing,” and "reasonable doubt” are not “at least in their legal sense, street familiar")) Weisman v. Connors, 76 Md.App. 488, 503 , 547 A.2d 636, 643 (1988) (noting the "amorphous” nature of the clear and convincing standard); Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F.2d 1153, 1158-59 (4th Cir.1971), cert. dismissed, sub nom. 2002See also Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370, 374 , 620 A.2d 295, 297 (1993) (noting that the terms “preponderance,” “clear and convincing,” and “reasonable doubt” are not “at least in their legal sense, street familiar”); Weisman v. Connors, 76 Md.App. 488, 503 , 547 A.2d 636, 643 (1988) (noting the “amorphous” nature of the clear and convincing standard); Tippett v. Maryland, 436 F.2d 1153, 1158-59 (4th Cir.1971), cert. dismissed, sub nom. | 2 | 2 |
Meyers v. Montgomery County Police Departmentgreen2 sentences2002Of particular relevance, the Circuit Court, citing Meyers v. Montgomery County Police, 96 Md.App. 668 , 626 A.2d 1010 (1993), acknowledged that the preponderance of the evidence standard may be used by an LEOBR hearing board (see Meyers, 96 Md.App. at 708 , 626 A.2d at 1030 ), but concluded that the Board in this case actually considered and decided the case utilizing the clear and convincing standard. 2002Of particular relevance, the Circuit Court, citing Meyers v. Montgomery County Police, 96 Md.App. 668 , 626 A.2d 1010 (1993), acknowledged that the preponderance of the evidence standard may be used by an LEOBR hearing board (see Meyers, 96 Md.App. at 708 , 626 A.2d at 1030 ), but concluded that the Board in this case actually considered and decided the case utilizing the clear and convincing standard. | 2 | 2 |
Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Healthgreen2 sentences1993Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 282 , 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2854 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 245-46 (1990). 1993Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 282 , 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2854 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 245-46 (1990). | 2 | 2 |
VF Corp. v. Wrexham Aviation Corp.green2 sentences2016The issue is whether [the plaintiff] presented sufficient evidence of the charge to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof,” VF Corp., 350 Md. at 711 , 715 A.2d at 196-97 (some alterations in original). . 2016The issue is whether [the plaintiff] presented sufficient evidence of the charge to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof,” VF Corp., 350 Md. at 711 , 715 A.2d at 196-97 (some alterations in original). . | 1 | 2 |
Darcars Motors of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Borzymgreen2 sentences2007In Darcars Motors of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Borzym, 150 Md.App. 18 , 818 A.2d 1159 (2003) [Darcars 7], we held that the clear and convincing standard of proof had no bearing on the trial court’s “determination of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting actual malice.” Darcars Motors of Silver Springs, Inc. v. Borzym, 379 Md. 249, 267 , 841 A.2d 828 (2004) [Darcars 77]. 2007In Darcars Motors of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Borzym, 150 Md.App. 18 , 818 A.2d 1159 (2003) [Darcars 7], we held that the clear and convincing standard of proof had no bearing on the trial court’s “determination of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting actual malice.” Darcars Motors of Silver Springs, Inc. v. Borzym, 379 Md. 249, 267 , 841 A.2d 828 (2004) [Darcars 77]. | 1 | 2 |
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2007In reaching the findings of fact to which we bestow a good measure of deference in our review, the hearing judge must “apply the clear and convincing standard of proof when weighing the evidence.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1, 16 , 904 A.2d 477, 486 (2006) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376, 389 , 784 A.2d 516, 523-24 (2001)); Maryland Rule 16-757(b). 2007In reaching the findings of fact to which we bestow a good measure of deference in our review, the hearing judge must “apply the clear and convincing standard of proof when weighing the evidence.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1, 16 , 904 A.2d 477, 486 (2006) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376, 389 , 784 A.2d 516, 523-24 (2001)); Maryland Rule 16-757(b). | 1 | 2 |
Rent-A-Car Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurancegreen2 sentences2002Co., 161 Md. 249 , 156 A. 847 (1931), as additional support for his contention that the clear and convincing standard was appropriate because allegations against him “amounted to an allegation of criminal conduct.” Meyers, 96 Md.App. at 695 , 626 A.2d at 1023 . 2002Co., 161 Md. 249 , 156 A. 847 (1931), as additional support for his contention that the clear and convincing standard was appropriate because allegations against him “amounted to an allegation of criminal conduct.” Meyers, 96 Md.App. at 695 , 626 A.2d at 1023 . | 1 | 2 |
Everett v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.red2 sentences2002Gas & Elec. *124 Co., 307 Md. 286 , 513 A.2d 882 (1986), in which the clear and convincing standard was applied in an administrative adjudication before the Maryland Public Service Commission (whose proceedings expressly are exempt from the contested case provisions of the State APA) involving charges of fraud, in tandem with consideration of the Court of Special Appeals’s decision in Meyers v. Montgomery County Police Dep’t, 96 Md.App. 668 , 626 A.2d 1010 (1993), in which the preponderance of the evidence standard was determined by the intermediate appellate court to apply in an administrativ 2002Gas & Elec. *124 Co., 307 Md. 286 , 513 A.2d 882 (1986), in which the clear and convincing standard was applied in an administrative adjudication before the Maryland Public Service Commission (whose proceedings expressly are exempt from the contested case provisions of the State APA) involving charges of fraud, in tandem with consideration of the Court of Special Appeals’s decision in Meyers v. Montgomery County Police Dep’t, 96 Md.App. 668 , 626 A.2d 1010 (1993), in which the preponderance of the evidence standard was determined by the intermediate appellate court to apply in an administrativ | 1 | 2 |
| Mathis v. Hargrovegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hayette v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mancuso v. Allergy Associatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scott v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kremergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Attorney Grievance Commission v. Nnakagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Solomon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Attorney Grievance Commission v. Guidagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Embrey v. Hollygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Adoption/Guardianship Nos. 2152a, 2153a, 2154a in Circuit Court for Allegany Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berger v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Embrey v. Hollygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Anne Arundel County Police Department
green
2 sentences2019The heightened clear and convincing standard of proof only applies in "certain limited circumstances." See Coleman , 369 Md. at 143 , 797 A.2d 770 . 2019The heightened clear and convincing standard of proof only applies in "certain limited circumstances." See Coleman , 369 Md. at 143 , 797 A.2d 770 . | 4 | 2005–2019 |
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia
green
2 sentences2004With respect to the clear-and-convincing standard of proof, we regarded it as “appropriate in the assessment of punitive damages because of their penal nature and potential for debilitating harm.” Zenobia, 325 Md. at 469 , 601 A.2d at 657 . 2004With respect to the clear-and-convincing standard of proof, we regarded it as “appropriate in the assessment of punitive damages because of their penal nature and potential for debilitating harm.” Zenobia, 325 Md. at 469 , 601 A.2d at 657 . | 4 | 1995–2004 |
Berkey v. Delia
green
2 sentences2023Mooney, 359 Md. at 79 (explaining that clear and convincing means “a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue”) (quoting Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302 ). 2023Mooney, 359 Md. at 79 (explaining that clear and convincing means “a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue”) (quoting Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302 ). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Adoption No. 09598 in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
neutral
2 sentences2017“Rather, it is to decide only whether there was sufficient evidence—by a clear and convincing standard—to support [the court’s] determination that it would be in the best interest of [the child] to terminate the parental rights of [the parent].” Id. 1998Rather, it is to decide only whether there was sufficient evidence — by a clear and convincing standard — to support the [trial court’s] determination that it would be in the best interest of [the child] to terminate the parental rights of his natural father. 77 Md.App. at 518 , 551 A.2d 143 ; see also In re Adoption/Guardianship Nos. 2152A 2153A 2154A 100 Md.App. 262, 270 , 641 A.2d 889 (1994). | 2 | 1998–2017 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky.2014) (there was no "reasonable certainty” the verdict would be different if CBLA evidence was excluded at new trial); Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Ky.2006) (rejecting CBLA under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)], but not finding a due process violation); Scott v. State, 788 N.W.2d 497, 502 (Minn.2010) (finding that studies discrediting CBLA evidence "[d]id not establish, by the clear and convincing standard, [defendant’s] innocence”); and Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , 2015Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky.2014) (there was no "reasonable certainty” the verdict would be different if CBLA evidence was excluded at new trial); Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Ky.2006) (rejecting CBLA under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)], but not finding a due process violation); Scott v. State, 788 N.W.2d 497, 502 (Minn.2010) (finding that studies discrediting CBLA evidence "[d]id not establish, by the clear and convincing standard, [defendant’s] innocence”); and Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , | 2 | 2015–2015 |
St. Clair v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2015Clair v. Commonwealth, ___ S.W.3d ____, 2014 WL 4113014 (Ky. 2014) (there was no “reasonable certainty” the verdict would be different if CBLA evidence was excluded at new trial); Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Ky. 2006) (rejecting CBLA under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)], but not finding a due process violation); Scott, supra, 788 N.W.2d at 502 (Minn. 2010) (finding that studies discrediting CBLA evidence “[d]id not establish, by the clear and convincing standard, [defendant’s] innocence”); and Commonwealth v. Fisher, 870 A.2d 864, 870-72 (Pa. 2005) 2015Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky.2014) (there was no "reasonable certainty” the verdict would be different if CBLA evidence was excluded at new trial); Ragland v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 569, 580 (Ky.2006) (rejecting CBLA under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)], but not finding a due process violation); Scott v. State, 788 N.W.2d 497, 502 (Minn.2010) (finding that studies discrediting CBLA evidence "[d]id not establish, by the clear and convincing standard, [defendant’s] innocence”); and Commonwealth v. Fisher, 582 Pa. 276 , | 2 | 2015–2015 |
ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND v. Clements
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 298 , 572 A.2d at 179 . 2010Id. at 298 , 572 A.2d at 179 . | 2 | 2009–2010 |
ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin
green
2 sentences2004Following our review of the evidence of bad faith, we stated that the “variety of inferences” drawn from that evidence “prevents [it] from rising to the clear and convincing standard of required for a finding of bad faith marketing.” Id. at 388 , 667 A.2d at 142 . 2004Following our review of the evidence of bad faith, we stated that the “variety of inferences” drawn from that evidence “prevents [it] from rising to the clear and convincing standard of required for a finding of bad faith marketing.” Id. at 388 , 667 A.2d at 142 . | 2 | 1996–2004 |
First Nat'l Bk. v. USF & G. CO.
green
2 sentences2001Co., 275 Md. 400 , 340 A.2d 275 (1975)] merely stand for the proposition that while the clear and convincing standard must be applied in a civil *447 proceeding in which fraud, dishonesty, or criminal conduct is alleged, this requirement does not automatically extend to administrative proceedings. 2001Co., 275 Md. 400 , 340 A.2d 275 (1975)] merely stand for the proposition that while the clear and convincing standard must be applied in a civil *447 proceeding in which fraud, dishonesty, or criminal conduct is alleged, this requirement does not automatically extend to administrative proceedings. | 2 | 1993–2001 |
| Addington v. Texas green | 2 | 1989–1992 |
| In Re Formal Inquiry Concerning Judge Diener green | 2 | 1984–1989 |
| Romero v. Perez neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Y.M. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In Re GUARDIANSHIP OF Jose Maria Chimborazo GUAMAN green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In Re Gloria H. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Attorney Grievance Commission v. London green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Darcars Motors of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Borzym green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Shurupoff v. Vockroth green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Kaylor v. Wilson green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Sydnor v. Maryland neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Carpenter v. Lock neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Sydnor v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Casey v. Roman Catholic Archbishop green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Hoffman v. Stamper green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| ACandS Inc. v. Asner green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| McGraw v. Loyola Ford, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Solomon v. Board of Physician Quality Assurance green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| In re Adoption/Guardianship No. T98314013 green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Jesse Byrd, Jr. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Wieland v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Morrissey v. Brewer green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Santosky v. Kramer green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Masaki v. General Motors Corp. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Broccolino v. Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Aeropesca Ltd. v. Butler Aviation International, Inc. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.