In Re: Giorgianna H., Stuart H., Sabrina H., Savannah H., Victoria H., Benjamin H., & Sarahanna H. - Concurring

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

In Re: Giorgianna H., Stuart H., Sabrina H., Savannah H., Victoria H., Benjamin H., & Sarahanna H. - Concurring

DecidedMarch 21, 2006

DocketM2005-01697-COA-R3-PT

StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Giorgianna H., Stuart H., Sabrina H., Savannah H., Victoria H., Benjamin H., & Sarahanna H. - Concurring (In Re: Giorgianna H., Stuart H., Sabrina H., Savannah H., Victoria H., Benjamin H., & Sarahanna H. - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: Giorgianna H., Stuart H., Sabrina H., Savannah H., Victoria H., Benjamin H., & Sarahanna H. - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 1, 2006

IN RE GIORGIANNA H., STUART H., SABRINA H., SAVANNAH H., VICTORIA H., BENJAMIN H., & SARAHANNA H.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Perry County No. 3358 Robert E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2005-01697-COA-R3-PT - Filed March 21, 2006

WILLIAM B. CAIN , J., concurring.

I adhere to my longstanding view that a “preponderance of the evidence” standard and a “clear and convincing evidence” standard are incompatible with each other and cannot be reconciled either in the trial court or in appellate courts. The effort to make these standards compatible, as asserted in Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001), and its progeny are in my view incorrect for reasons stated at length in Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger, 56 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001) and In re Z.J.S. and M.J.P., No. M2002-02235-COA-R3-JV, filed June 3, 2003 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003- Cain, concurring).

Regardless of this disagreement, the exhaustive and scholarly opinion authored by Judge Koch for the majority discloses a case that would withstand scrutiny under any definition of clear, cogent and convincing evidence. I therefore concur in the judgment.

___________________________________ WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 1, 2006

IN RE GIORGIANNA H., STUART H., SABRINA H., SAVANNAH H., VICTORIA H., BENJAMIN H., & SARAHANNA H.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Perry County No. 3358 Robert E. Lee Davies, Judge

No. M2005-01697-COA-R3-PT - Filed March 21, 2006

WILLIAM B. CAIN , J., concurring.

I adhere to my longstanding view that a “preponderance of the evidence” standard and a “clear and convincing evidence” standard are incompatible with each other and cannot be reconciled either in the trial court or in appellate courts. The effort to make these standards compatible, as asserted in Ray v. Ray, 83 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001), and its progeny are in my view incorrect for reasons stated at length in Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger, 56 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001) and In re Z.J.S. and M.J.P., No. M2002-02235-COA-R3-JV, filed June 3, 2003 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003- Cain, concurring).

Regardless of this disagreement, the exhaustive and scholarly opinion authored by Judge Koch for the majority discloses a case that would withstand scrutiny under any definition of clear, cogent and convincing evidence. I therefore concur in the judgment.

___________________________________ WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In Re: Giorgianna H., Stuart H., Sabrina H., Savannah H., Victoria H., Benjamin H., & Sarahanna H. - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-giorgianna-h-stuart-h-sabrina-h-savannah-h-v-tennctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack