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.
8 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Marc Gouingreen2 sentences2018State v. Gouin, 182 A.3d 28, 34 (R.I. 2018). 2018State v. Gouin , 182 A.3d 28 , 34 (R.I. 2018). | 1 | 2 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen1 sentence2026While it is true that courts apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in civil cases to protect important rights such as those involving “a significant deprivation of liberty” or “stigma,” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426 (1979)), such an application is not automatic. | 1 | 1 |
People v. JASON K.green1 sentence2026See People v. Jason K., 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 443, 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (“[T]he fact that a proceeding may result in a loss of an important constitutional right does not necessarily mean that the preponderance of the evidence standard violates due process.”). | 1 | 1 |
Addington v. Texasgreen1 sentence2026While it is true that courts apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in civil cases to protect important rights such as those involving “a significant deprivation of liberty” or “stigma,” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426 (1979)), such an application is not automatic. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cahill v. Morrow
green
2 sentences2018The clear and convincing evidence standard does not require that the evidence negate all reasonable doubt or that the evidence must be uncontroverted.” Rhode Island Mobile Sportfishermen, Inc. v. Nope’s Island Conservation Association, Inc., 59 A.3d 112 , 121 n.16 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 , 88 n.7 (R.I. 2011)). - 11 - the marriage.” Petrarca, 448 A.2d at 1289 . 2018The clear and convincing evidence standard does not require that the evidence negate all reasonable doubt or that the evidence must be uncontroverted." Rhode Island Mobile Sportfishermen, Inc. v. Nope's Island Conservation Association, Inc. , 59 A.3d 112 , 121 n.16 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Cahill v. Morrow , 11 A.3d 82 , 88 n.7 (R.I. 2011) ). | 2 | 2013–2018 |
McGarry v. Coletti
green
2 sentences2026In their papers, plaintiffs cite to McGarry v. Coletti, 33 A.3d 140 (R.I. 2011), without explanation, for their contention that the trial justice’s “incomplete analysis warrants reversal.” In McGarry, this Court affirmed the Superior Court’s - 17 - determination that the claimant failed to satisfy the open and notorious elements of adverse possession, giving deference to the trial justice’s finding that the claimant’s “less-than-obvious” maintenance of the disputed parcel was insufficient to rise to the clear and convincing evidence standard. 2026McGarry, 33 A.3d at 146-47 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Petrarca v. Castrovillari
green
1 sentence2018The clear and convincing evidence standard does not require that the evidence negate all reasonable doubt or that the evidence must be uncontroverted.” Rhode Island Mobile Sportfishermen, Inc. v. Nope’s Island Conservation Association, Inc., 59 A.3d 112 , 121 n.16 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 , 88 n.7 (R.I. 2011)). - 11 - the marriage.” Petrarca, 448 A.2d at 1289 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rhode Island Mobile Sportfishermen, Inc. v. Nope's Island Conservation Association, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018The clear and convincing evidence standard does not require that the evidence negate all reasonable doubt or that the evidence must be uncontroverted.” Rhode Island Mobile Sportfishermen, Inc. v. Nope’s Island Conservation Association, Inc., 59 A.3d 112 , 121 n.16 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 , 88 n.7 (R.I. 2011)). - 11 - the marriage.” Petrarca, 448 A.2d at 1289 . 2018The clear and convincing evidence standard does not require that the evidence negate all reasonable doubt or that the evidence must be uncontroverted." Rhode Island Mobile Sportfishermen, Inc. v. Nope's Island Conservation Association, Inc. , 59 A.3d 112 , 121 n.16 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Cahill v. Morrow , 11 A.3d 82 , 88 n.7 (R.I. 2011) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists
green
1 sentence2010To support his position, appellant cites an Oklahoma Supreme Court case Johnson v. Board of Governors of the State of Oklahoma , 913 P.2d 1339 , 1345 (1996), which determined that the proper standard of proof in a dental license revocation proceeding is the clear and convincing evidence standard. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Loeb v. New Times Communications Corp.
green
1 sentence1989The clear and convincing evidence standard to prove actual malice has been defined as “intermediate between the normal ‘preponderance of the evidence’ civil standard and the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ criminal standard.” Loeb v. New Times Communications Corp., 497 F.Supp. 85 , 92 n. 11 (S.D.N.Y.1980). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.