context: Credibility findings demand even greater deference. When applying this standard of review, we necessarily incorporate an understanding of the appropriate burden of proof in the district court.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 544 F.2d 883, 885
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error, but that the finding must be judged in view of the "clear and convincing" burden of proof
citation_a.sentence: See Marsellus v. Comm’r, 544 F.2d 883, 885 (5th Cir.1977) (holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error, but that the finding must be judged in view of the “clear and convincing” burden of proof); see also MacDonald v. Kahikolu, Ltd., 581 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir.2009) (reviewing for clear error the district court’s finding that the evidence clearly and convincingly established a fact); EEOC v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 736 F.2d 510, 513 (9th Cir.1984) (reviewing for clear error the district court’s factual conclusion that a party had sustained its burden of proving that a statutory provision applied).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 736 F.2d 510, 513
citation_b.parenthetical: reviewing for clear error the district court's factual conclusion that a party had sustained its burden of proving that a statutory provision applied
citation_b.sentence: See Marsellus v. Comm’r, 544 F.2d 883, 885 (5th Cir.1977) (holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error, but that the finding must be judged in view of the “clear and convincing” burden of proof); see also MacDonald v. Kahikolu, Ltd., 581 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir.2009) (reviewing for clear error the district court’s finding that the evidence clearly and convincingly established a fact); EEOC v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 736 F.2d 510, 513 (9th Cir.1984) (reviewing for clear error the district court’s factual conclusion that a party had sustained its burden of proving that a statutory provision applied).