Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Weber Ex Rel. Weber v. Anderson, 269 N.W.2d 892.

95 citing documents.

Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
1; (noting that satisfaction of the standard of clear and convincing evidence “requires more than a preponderance of the evidence”).
State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
The clear and convincing standard “requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
Clear and convincing evidence is “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
I. Clear and Convincing Whether evidence of a subsequent act is clear and convincing “requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
We have said that clear and convincing evidence is “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Moeller 582 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1998
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Moeller 582 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1998
State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
Murphy v. Myers 560 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Murphy v. Myers 560 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The Parentage Act must be construed liberally to achieve its “remedial and humanitarian purposes.”
Wilson v. Speer 499 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Wilson v. Speer 499 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
We must interpret the Parentage Act liberally to achieve its “remedial and humanitarian purposes.”
Spaeth v. Warren 478 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Spaeth v. Warren 478 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
This section must be construed liberally, to achieve its “remedial and humanitarian purposes.” (-95 (Minn.1978)).
In re Reinstatement of Williams 433 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1988
Voss v. Duerscherl 425 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1988
Voss v. Duerscherl 425 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1988
the court of appeals concluded that this survival issue had already been decided.
In Re Complaint Concerning Miera 426 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1988
In Re Complaint Concerning Miera 426 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
First, the Minnesota Supreme Court has defined the “clear and convincing” evidence standard as requiring “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Voss v. Duerscherl 408 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Voss v. Duerscherl 408 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a paternity action could be maintained after the putative father’s death.
Kiecker v. Estate of Kiecker 404 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kiecker v. Estate of Kiecker 404 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Clear and convincing proof will be shown where the truth of the facts asserted is “ ‘highly probable.’ ”
Larson v. Schmidt 400 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Larson v. Schmidt 400 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-95 (1978) (footnote omitted).
Matter of Estate of Rechtzigel 385 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Estate of Rechtzigel 385 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Matter of Estate of Anderson 379 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Estate of Anderson 379 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Ward 369 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1985
State v. Ward 369 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1985
In Re Estate of Lobe 348 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Estate of Lobe 348 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Clear and convincing proof will be shown where the truth of the facts asserted is “ ‘highly probable.’ ”
Benson v. LaBatte 288 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1979
Benson v. LaBatte 288 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 1979
The testimony of the mother must be sufficiently clear and convincing.” in which we again said that paternity may be proved only by clear and convincing evidence, which we defined as requiring “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less that proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Defendant insists that plaintiff’s testimony was so inconsistent and so impeached that is
Scheibel v. Pavlak 282 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1979
Hepfel v. Bashaw 279 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1979
Hepfel v. Bashaw 279 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1979
525.172; An Unborn Child, by Wilcox v. Evans, 310 Minn. 197 , and the cases collected in Krause, The Uniform Parentage Act, 8 Fam.L.Q.