In re Debra B

3 Citing cases

  1. Dubois v. Madison Paper Co.

    2002 Me. 1 (Me. 2002)   Cited 10 times
    Defining “clear and convincing evidence”

    E.g., In re Charles G., 2001 ME 3, ¶ 5, 763 A.2d 1163, 1166 (termination of parental rights); Baizley v. Baizley, 1999 ME 115, ¶ 8, 734 A.2d 1117, 1119 (imposition of constructive trust for constructive fraud); Mariello v. Giguere, 667 A.2d 588, 590 (Me. 1995) (common law fraudulent misrepresentation); Fitzgerald v. Gamester, 658 A.2d 1065, 1070 (Me. 1995) (punitive damages); Davis v. Mitchell, 628 A.2d 657, 661 (Me. 1993) (establishment of boundary by acquiescence); Dolloff v. Dolloff, 593 A.2d 1044, 1045 (Me. 1991) (undue influence); Estate of Richard, 556 A.2d 1091, 1092 (Me. 1989) (existence of will); Lietz v. Berry, 543 A.2d 367, 368 n. 1 (Me. 1988) (mutual mistake); In re Debra B., 495 A.2d 781, 783 (Me. 1985) (involuntary sterilization). [¶ 12] Madison contends that these decisions in appeals from trial courts have limited applicability to the interpretation of section 312 of the Workers' Compensation Act. It suggests that the requirement of clear and convincing evidence must be read in the context of the purpose to prevent a "battle of the experts" in workers' compensation cases.

  2. Baizley v. Baizley

    1999 Me. 115 (Me. 1999)   Cited 13 times

    See id. "Where factual findings must be made on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, the standard of review is `whether the factfinder could reasonably have been persuaded that the required factual finding was or was not proved to be highly probable.'" Fitzgerald v. Gamester, 658 A.2d 1065, 1069-70 (Me. 1995) (quoting In re Debra B., 495 A.2d 781, 783 (Me. 1985)). [¶ 9] Competent evidence supports the court's finding to a high degree of probability that a relationship of trust existed between grandmother and grandson and that the parties agreed that Robert would share the property with his siblings.

  3. Fitzgerald v. Gamester

    658 A.2d 1065 (Me. 1995)   Cited 47 times
    In Fitzgerald, a seller of real estate did not disclose to the buyer that the well water was not safe to drink until after the closing, even though the seller knew the well had been abandoned because of contaminated water and the seller had been using a neighbor's water source.

    Where factual findings must be made on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, the standard of review is "whether the factfinder could reasonably have been persuaded that the required factual finding was or was not proved to be highly probable." In re Debra B., 495 A.2d 781, 783 (Me. 1985) (quoting Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health, 481 A.2d 139, 153 (Me. 1984)). In the absence of a motion to the trial court for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, we assume that the trial court found all of the facts necessary to support its decision.