Cited by

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

95 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Application by Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Application by Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in … Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Under Minnesota law, “[c]lear and convincing proof will be shown where the truth of the facts asserted is ‘highly probable.’”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: H.M.S. and A.A.C., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kerry Mitchell Lenz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kerry Mitchell Lenz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Clear and convincing evidence is “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Clear and convincing evidence is shown when “the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Clear and convincing evidence requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and is shown when “the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: T. L. S. and J. J. C., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2022
The clear and convincing evidence standard is higher and requires that “the truth of the facts asserted 24 is ‘highly probable.’ ”
Eric S. Walker, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The clea r-and-convincing standard is higher than a preponderance of the evidence and is satisfied when “the truth of the facts asserted is ‘highly probable.’” (Mi nn.
Carney Lien, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Clear and convincing ev idence refers to a quantum of evidence that is “more than a preponderance of the evi dence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Christie v. Estate 911 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 2018
Christie v. Estate 911 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 2018
Weber v. Anderson , , 895 (Minn. 1978) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A17-0613 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Clear and convincing evidence is “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” ().
In re the Civil Commitment of Kropp 895 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Civil Commitment of Kropp 895 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The supreme court has defined clear and convincing evidence as ‘more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. B. T. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. B. T. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Clear and convincing evidence requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the standard is satisfied when “the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (quotation marks omitted).
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Robert D. STONEBURNER, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0105909 882 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2016
In Re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Robert D. STONEBURNER, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0105909 882 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 2016
In re the Estate of: Bernie E. Pederson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Bernie E. Pederson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Clear and convincing proof will be shown where the truth of the facts asserted is ‘highly probable.’” () (discussing clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in context of proving a gift).
Jacob Brown, a minor, by his legal guardian Megan Brown v. Duluth Steam Cooperative Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jacob Brown, a minor, by his legal guardian Megan Brown v. Duluth Steam Cooperative Association Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Clear and convincing evidence” refers to a quantum of evidence that is “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. T. J. Z. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
8 than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. A. Y. G., a/k/a A. Y. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. A. Y. G., a/k/a A. Y. L. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Clear and convincing evidence requires “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and is shown where “the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kenneth Melvin Shue, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Clear and convincing evidence is “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and “will be shown where the truth of the facts asserted is ‘highly probable.’”
Limberg v. Mitchell 834 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Limberg v. Mitchell 834 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The supreme court has defined clear and convincing evidence as “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” and is established “when the truth of the facts asserted is ‘highly probable.’ ”
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
The clear and convincing evidence standard is met “when the truth of the fact to be proven is ‘highly probable.’ ” ().
Inquiry into the Conduct of Karasov 805 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2011
Inquiry into the Conduct of Karasov 805 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 2011
Clear and convincing evidence requires that “the truth of the facts asserted is ‘highly probable.’ ” ().
RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark 787 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark 787 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See Pearson v. Bertelson, 244 Minn. 224, 227 , (stating that section 573.01 applies to the survival of “all causes of action” not specifically excluded); see also, (concluding that paternity actions survive under section 573.01).
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Gassler v. State 787 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Clear and convincing evidence “requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Lyons 780 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2010
In Re Disciplinary Action Against Lyons 780 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2010
(noting that clear and convincing evidence is established by “more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”).
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Houge 764 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2009
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Houge 764 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2009
(noting that clear and convincing evidence is established by “more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”).
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
“Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that is “more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Inquiry Into the Conduct of the Honorable Stacey 737 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 2007
Thompson v. Hughart 664 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2003