Opinion ID: 1987708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Clear-and-Convincing Evidence

Text: Since the time of Justice Calvert's article, new claims and burdens of proof have arisen that require additions to the four types of no-evidence review Justice Calvert considered exhaustive. Beginning with the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Jackson v. Virginia, appellate courts have recognized that, while one slender bit of evidence may be all a reviewing court needs to affirm a verdict based on the preponderance of the evidence, a higher burden of proof requires a higher standard of review. [72] As we recently stated, the standard for legal sufficiency works in tandem with the standard of review  whenever the standard of proof at trial is elevated, the standard of appellate review must likewise be elevated. [73] If the rule were otherwise, legally sufficient evidence to support a preponderance-of-the-evidence verdict would satisfy the higher burdens as well, thus rendering their differences meaningless. [74] Accordingly, we have held that a legal sufficiency review must consider all the evidence (not just that favoring the verdict) in reviewing cases of parental termination, [75] defamation, [76] and punitive damages. [77] In such cases, again, evidence contrary to a verdict cannot be disregarded.