to overcome presumption of paternity); State v. Miller, 79 Hawai'i 194, 900 P.2d 770 (1995) (requiring clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released); State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai'i 433, 896 P.2d 889 (1995) (requiring clear and convincing evidence that any evidence obtained in violation of article I, section 7, would inevitably have been discovered by lawful means before such evidence may be admitted); Cresencia v. Kim, 10 Haw.App. 461, 878 P.2d 725 (1994) (requiring clear and convincing evidence that the representations were false and that the defendant misrepresented and/or failed to inform the petitioner of the agreement status); Maria v. Freitas, 73 Haw. 266, 832 P.2d 259 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rapp, 70
holding that a constructive trust is imposed in order to prevent injustice and that such a trust may be imposed when the circumstances show that it would be inequitable for the holder of legal title to retain the property holding that the statute of limitations cannot bar appellants claim that a constructive trust should be imposed  because a constructive trust is an equitable remedy and therefore not subject to the statute holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding that a constructive trust will be imposed where the evidence is clear and convincing that one party will be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the entire property holding that a party is unjustly enriched where under the circumstances it would be inequitable for the party to retain a benefit for which it has not provided value