DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Renforth, 746 P.2d 1315.

36 citing documents.

  • Henke v. Hospital Ariz. 2025
  • Henke v. Hospital Ariz. 2025
    avier burden upon one party to prove its case to a reasonable certainty.” Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 284–85 ¶ 25 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 577 (7th ed. 1999)); (“Clear and convincing evidence means that which may persuade that the truth of the contention is highly probable.” (citation modified)); (“[A] party who has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence must persuade the jury that his or her claim is highly probable.
  • Henke v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Henke v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    This standard is more exacting than the standard of preponderance of the evidence, but less exacting than the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Servin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    “[A] party who has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence must persuade the [factfinder] that his or her claim is highly probable.”
  • Penny G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Penny G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See In re MH 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. 8 PENNY G. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court 160, 169, ¶ 29 (App. 2008) (clear and convincing evidence of medical issue requires "evidence expressed to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability"); ("The clear and convincing standard is reserved for cases where substantial interests at stake require an extra measure of confidence by the factfinders in the correctness of their judgment, though not to such degree as is required to convict of crim
  • Jade K. v. Loraine K. and A.K. 380 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Jade K. v. Loraine K. and A.K. 380 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    That is, we will not reverse a termination order for insufficient evidence unless, 1 “The clear and convincing standard is reserved for cases where substantial interests at stake require an extra measure of confidence by the factfinders in the correctness of their judgment, though not to such degree as is required to convict of crime.”
  • State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that makes the proposition “highly probable.” (citation omitted).
  • In Re Mh2011-000914 275 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • In Re Mh2011-000914 275 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    “[T]he bare assertion that the statutory criterion was met, without any explication of the facts that show it was met, does not constitute ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ ” MH 94-00592, 182 Ariz. at 447 n. 4, 897 P.2d at 749 n. 4 ( , ).
  • State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Vega 262 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Clear and convincing evidence creates a high probability that a proposition is true, ¶ 75 , , but need not establish that it is certainly or unambiguously true
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Roque 141 P.3d 368 Ariz. 2006
    ¶76 P.2d 1315 (App. 1987), for the proposition that erroneous jury instructions constitute fundamental error.
  • American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
  • Explained American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
    burdens of proof correlate positively with the significance of the interests at stake.
  • American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 72 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    (noting clear and convincing standard applied in part to prove fraud because substantial reputational interests at stake).
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    evidence admitted under preponderance standard would have been admitted under clear-and-convincing standard); -23 , -43 (1988) ( , but preferring to define “clear and convincing” as “highly probable,” , ).
  • In Re Varbel 897 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1995
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County of Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592 897 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    “The clear and convincing standard is reserved for cases where substantial interests at stake require an extra measure of confidence by the fact finders in the correctness of their judgment.”
  • State v. Ruelas 798 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Leonardo 776 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Leonardo 776 P.2d 789 Ariz. 1989
    The court noted that another panel of the court of appeals found a , petition for review vacated
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. King 763 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1988
    § 13-502.” , rev. granted Nov.
  • State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Lundstrom 759 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    3 , (review granted, CR-0199, Ariz.Sup.Ct.
  • State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Leonardo 751 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987