58 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bazydlo v. Volantgreen2 sentences2025Our supreme court has defined “clear and convincing evidence” as “more than a preponderance while not quite approaching the degree of proof necessary to convict a person of a criminal offense.” Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 213 (1995). 2017Although stated in terms of reasonable doubt, courts consider clear and convincing evidence to be more than a preponderance while not quite approaching the degree of proof necessary to convict a person of a criminal offense.” Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 213 (1995). ¶ 83 “Whether and to what extent a person needs a guardian is a factual determination to be made by the trial court and which a reviewing court may not reverse unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Estate of Silverman, 257 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2004App. 3d 133, 150 (2003) (holding that due process requires only a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof in the best interest phase versus a clear and convincing evidence standard in the unfitness phase); see also Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 760-61 , 71 L. 2004App. 3d 133, 150 (2003) (holding that due process requires only a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof in the best interest phase versus a clear and convincing evidence standard in the unfitness phase); see also Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 760-61 , 71 L. | 2 | 7 |
People v. Delores W.green2 sentences2019He cites In re Mark W., 228 Ill. 2d 365, 374-75 , 888 N.E.2d 15, 20 (2008), for the proposition that a person who has been adjudicated as disabled is viewed as a favored person entitled to the court’s vigilant protection. 2019He cites In re Mark W., 228 Ill. 2d 365, 374-75 , 888 N.E.2d 15, 20 (2008), for the proposition that a person who has been adjudicated as disabled is viewed as a favored person entitled to the court’s vigilant protection. | 2 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Henkegreen2 sentences2025See In re Marriage of Henke, 313 Ill. 2023In re Marriage of Henke, 313 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Kessler v. Zekmangreen2 sentences2023Stated differently, the relevant inquiry is whether the material submitted, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, could support a reasonable trier of fact finding actual malice “by the clear and convincing evidence standard.” Kessler v. Zekman, 250 Ill. 2023Thus, because of the heightened standard at issue here, “in order to withstand a summary judgment motion a plaintiff must present evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that [plaintiff] had established the requisite -7- No. 1-22-1098 fault by the clear and convincing evidence standard.” Kessler v. Zekman, 250 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Estate of Silvermangreen2 sentences2017Although stated in terms of reasonable doubt, courts consider clear and convincing evidence to be more than a preponderance while not quite approaching the degree of proof necessary to convict a person of a criminal offense.” Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 213 (1995). ¶ 83 “Whether and to what extent a person needs a guardian is a factual determination to be made by the trial court and which a reviewing court may not reverse unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Estate of Silverman, 257 Ill. 2017Although stated in terms of reasonable doubt, courts consider clear and convincing evidence to be more than a preponderance while not quite approaching the degree of proof necessary to convict a person of a criminal offense.” Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 213 (1995). ¶ 83 “Whether and to what extent a person needs a guardian is a factual determination to be made by the trial court and which a reviewing court may not reverse unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Estate of Silverman, 257 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
In Re DTgreen2 sentences2010In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 361, 818 N.E.2d at 1225. 2010In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d at 361, 818 N.E.2d at 1225. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Michelle J.green2 sentences2008See In re Michelle J., 209 Ill. 2d 428, 438 , 808 N.E.2d 987, 992 (2004) (“If the State adduced no valid evidentiary basis for the relief it sought, it necessarily follows that it failed to establish its case by clear and convincing evidence”); State Bank of Countryside v. City of Chicago, 287 Ill. 2008See In re Michelle J., 209 Ill. 2d 428, 438 , 808 N.E.2d 987, 992 (2004) (“If the State adduced no valid evidentiary basis for the relief it sought, it necessarily follows that it failed to establish its case by clear and convincing evidence”); State Bank of Countryside v. City of Chicago, 287 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp.green2 sentences2005McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 188 Ill. 2d 102, 134 , 720 N.E.2d 242, 258 (1999) (conspiracy to conceal danger of asbestos); Bosak v. McDonough, 192 Ill. 2005McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 188 Ill. 2d 102, 134 , 720 N.E.2d 242, 258 (1999) (conspiracy to conceal danger of asbestos); Bosak v. McDonough, 192 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences1986Citing Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , Addington v. Texas (1979), 441 U.S. 418 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , and Board of Regents v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , however, Kimbrough maintains that due process requires that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof be used in tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings in which conduct that might also constitute a crime is charged. 1986Citing Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , Addington v. Texas (1979), 441 U.S. 418 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , and Board of Regents v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , however, Kimbrough maintains that due process requires that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof be used in tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings in which conduct that might also constitute a crime is charged. | 1 | 3 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.green2 sentences2023App. 3d 172, 190 , 620 N.E.2d 1249, 1261 (1993); see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (stating an “appropriate summary judgment question will be whether the evidence in the record could support a reasonable jury finding *** that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence”). ¶ 50 D. 1993(Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 257 , 91 L. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Knoche and Meyergreen2 sentences2003In re Marriage of Knoche, 322 Ill.App.3d 297, 306 , 255 Ill.Dec. 716 , 750 N.E.2d 297 (2001); In re Estate of Blom, 234 Ill. 2003In re Marriage of Knoche, 322 Ill.App.3d 297, 306 , 255 Ill.Dec. 716 , 750 N.E.2d 297 (2001); In re Estate of Blom, 234 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
In Re WINSHIPgreen2 sentences2003"The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to `instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.' Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 329 (1979), quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1076 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 379 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). 2003"The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to `instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.' Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 329 (1979), quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1076 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 379 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). | 1 | 2 |
In Re BCgreen2 sentences1997Respondent relies upon the third district case In re B.C., 247 Ill.App.3d 803,806-07 , 187 Ill.Dec. 486 , 617 N.E.2d 1207 (1993), in which the appellate court held that the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of parental rights was in the child's best interests. 1997Respondent relies upon the third district case In re B.C., 247 Ill.App.3d 803,806-07 , 187 Ill.Dec. 486 , 617 N.E.2d 1207 (1993), in which the appellate court held that the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of parental rights was in the child's best interests. | 1 | 2 |
Galapeaux v. Orvillergreen2 sentences1977It is generally held that in order to satisfy the standard a fact must be established “in certain, definite and unequivocal terms and be so convincing that it will leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of the court.” (Galapeaux v. Orviller, 4 Ill. 2d 442, 446 , 123 N.E.2d 321 , citing Williams v. Corcoran, 346 Ill. 105, 106 , 178 N.E. 348 .) The Illinois formulation of the clear and convincing standard is consistent with that of most jurisdictions. 1977It is generally held that in order to satisfy the standard a fact must be established “in certain, definite and unequivocal terms and be so convincing that it will leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of the court.” (Galapeaux v. Orviller, 4 Ill. 2d 442, 446 , 123 N.E.2d 321 , citing Williams v. Corcoran, 346 Ill. 105, 106 , 178 N.E. 348 .) The Illinois formulation of the clear and convincing standard is consistent with that of most jurisdictions. | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Lambertgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Moralesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Casegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Estate of Blomgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chicago Land Clearance Commission v. Yablonggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wright v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Davon H.
green
2 sentences2019Davon H., 2015 IL App (1st) 150926, ¶ 47 . 2018Davon H. , 2015 IL App (1st) 150926 , ¶ 47, 398 Ill.Dec. 732 , 44 N.E.3d 1144 . | 3 | 2018–2019 |
In Re Stephenson
green
2 sentences1977(In re Stephenson, 67 Ill. 2d 544 , 367 N.E.2d 1273 .) The court determined that the clear and convincing standard “requires a high level of certainty before finding an individual in need of mental treatment and curtailing his liberty, but does not place an impossible burden on the State in proving its case.” ( 67 Ill. 2d 544, 556-57 .) This clear and convincing evidence standard is applicable in a variety of contexts and a number of Illinois decisions have discussed the essential requisites of the standard. 1977(In re Stephenson, 67 Ill. 2d 544 , 367 N.E.2d 1273 .) The court determined that the clear and convincing standard “requires a high level of certainty before finding an individual in need of mental treatment and curtailing his liberty, but does not place an impossible burden on the State in proving its case.” ( 67 Ill. 2d 544, 556-57 .) This clear and convincing evidence standard is applicable in a variety of contexts and a number of Illinois decisions have discussed the essential requisites of the standard. | 3 | 1977–1978 |
C.L. v. Makiah L.
green
2 sentences2025See 705 ILCS 405/2-29 (West 2024); In re C.L., 2018 IL App (1st) 180577 , ¶ 41. 2025See 705 ILCS 405/2-29 (West 2024); In re C.L., 2018 IL App (1st) 180577 , ¶ 41. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Donath
green
2 sentences2017Rather than combining the Collins reasonable doubt standard of review with the clear and convincing evidence standard, we find that the proper standard of review was whether the court’s determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as set forth in Donath, 2013 IL App (3d) 120251, ¶ 38 , and Sandry, 367 Ill. 2017Rather than combining the Collins reasonable doubt standard of review with the clear and convincing evidence standard, we find that the proper standard of review was whether the court’s determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as set forth in Donath, 2013 IL App (3d) 120251, ¶ 38 , and Sandry, 367 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Commitment of Sandry
green
2 sentences2017Rather than combining the Collins reasonable doubt standard of review with the clear and convincing evidence standard, we find that the proper standard of review was whether the court’s determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as set forth in Donath, 2013 IL App (3d) 120251, ¶ 38 , and Sandry, 367 Ill. 2017Rather than combining the Collins reasonable doubt standard of review with the clear and convincing evidence standard, we find that the proper standard of review was whether the court’s determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as set forth in Donath, 2013 IL App (3d) 120251, ¶ 38 , and Sandry, 367 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Pineschi v. Rock River Water Reclamation District
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 724 . 2014Id. at 724 . | 2 | 2014–2015 |
State Bank of Countryside v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2008See In re Michelle J., 209 Ill. 2d 428, 438 , 808 N.E.2d 987, 992 (2004) (“If the State adduced no valid evidentiary basis for the relief it sought, it necessarily follows that it failed to establish its case by clear and convincing evidence”); State Bank of Countryside v. City of Chicago, 287 Ill. 2008See Michelle J., 209 Ill.2d 428, 438 , 283 Ill.Dec. 699 , 808 N.E.2d 987, 992 (2004) ("If the State adduced *251 no valid evidentiary basis for the relief it sought, it necessarily follows that it failed to establish its case by clear and convincing evidence"); State Bank of Countryside v. City of Chicago, 287 Ill. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Alaka W.
green
2 sentences2008In re Alaka W., 379 Ill.App.3d at 263 , 318 Ill.Dec. 686 , 884 N.E.2d 241 . 2008In re Alaka W., 379 Ill.App.3d at 263 , 318 Ill.Dec. 686 , 884 N.E.2d 241 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Bosak v. McDonough
green
2 sentences2005McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. , 188 Ill. 2d 102, 134 , 720 N.E.2d 242, 258 (1999) (conspiracy to conceal danger of asbestos); Bosak v. McDonough , 192 Ill. 2005McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 188 Ill. 2d 102, 134 , 720 N.E.2d 242, 258 (1999) (conspiracy to conceal danger of asbestos); Bosak v. McDonough, 192 Ill. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Custody of Dykhuis
green
2 sentences2001In re Custody of Dykhuis, 131 Ill. 2001In re Custody of Dykhuis , 131 Ill. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Helvey v. Rednour
neutral
2 sentences1994They assert that the right to privacy explicitly granted in Article I of the Illinois Constitution must be applied to the parenting context "without restrictions." It is well-settled that, "[a]s with other fundamental rights, the right to establish a family and raise children may be curtailed or eliminated by State law if the purpose of the law is to advance a compelling State interest." ( Helvey v. Rednour (1980), 86 Ill.App.3d 154, 158 , 41 Ill.Dec. 671 , 408 N.E.2d 17 .) Further, "the protection of the welfare of a child has been recognized as being a sufficiently compelling interest" to ov 1994They assert that the right to privacy explicitly granted in article I of the Illinois Constitution must be applied to the parenting context "without restrictions.” •2 It is well settled that, "[a]s with other fundamental rights, the right to establish a family and raise children may be curtailed or eliminated by State law if the purpose of the law is to advance a compelling State interest.” (Helvey v. Rednour (1980), 86 Ill. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Enis
green
2 sentences1994(See Enis, 121 Ill.2d at 132-33 , 117 Ill.Dec. 201 , 520 N.E.2d 362 .) Therefore, the parents' due process rights were not violated by the trial judge's failure to use the clear and convincing evidence standard in her determination that the parents were unfit to regain custody of their children under section 2-23. *724 Sandy and James additionally argue that the trial judge violated their Illinois Constitutional right to privacy by not applying a clear and convincing evidence standard. 1994(See Enis, 121 Ill. 2d at 132-33 .) Therefore, the parents’ due process rights were not violated by the trial judge’s failure to use the clear and convincing evidence standard in her determination that the parents .were unfit to regain custody of their children under section 2 — 23. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Drezner v. Civil Service Commission
green
2 sentences1986The appellate court, citing Drezner v. Civil Service Com. (1947), 398 Ill. 219 , held that the hearing officer was correct in the standard of proof that he chose (clear and convincing). 134 Ill. 1986The appellate court, citing Drezner v. Civil Service Com. (1947), 398 Ill. 219 , held that the hearing officer was correct in the standard of proof that he chose (clear and convincing). 134 Ill. | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
green
2 sentences1986Citing Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , Addington v. Texas (1979), 441 U.S. 418 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , and Board of Regents v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , however, Kimbrough maintains that due process requires that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof be used in tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings in which conduct that might also constitute a crime is charged. 1986Ed. 2d 548 , 92 S. Ct. 2701 , however, Kimbrough maintains that due process requires that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof be used in tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings in which conduct that might also constitute a crime is charged. | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Kimbrough v. Board of Education
neutral
2 sentences1986The appellate court, citing Drezner v. Civil Service Com. (1947), 398 Ill. 219 , held that the hearing officer was correct in the standard of proof that he chose (clear and convincing). 134 Ill. 1986The appellate court, citing Drezner v. Civil Service Com. (1947), 398 Ill. 219 , held that the hearing officer was correct in the standard of proof that he chose (clear and convincing). 134 Ill. | 2 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. C.S. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| In Re CS green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| In Interest of Sa green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In Re Marriage of Hagshenas green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| In Re Marriage of Partyka green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| La Salle National Bank v. 850 De Witt Condominium Ass'n green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| 319 South La Salle Corp. v. Lopin green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| In Re Jones green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Williams v. Corcoran neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Lynch v. Overholser green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| French v. Blackburn green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.