these factors are similar to those in the present case, as the trustees argued below that tax revenue and tax base would be lost as a result of the annexation. The trustees also argued that they would lose the ability to control development in the annexed area. We do not find that loss of tax base, loss of zoning ability, or lost tax revenues constitute adverse effect on legal rights or interests for purposes of satisfying R.C. 709.07(D). These matters would occur in any annexation situation, and like the trial court, we refuse to adopt the position that any loss of tax base or tax revenue is per se an adverse legal effect. We also agree with the trial court that the evidence presented as to loss of tax base was speculative. See McGee, supra, 39 Ohio St.3d 284, 286, 530 N.E.2d 902, 904 (<HOLDING>). While the charts submitted by the township
holding that burden of clear and convincing proof cannot be satisfied by mere conjecture or speculation holding that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding 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 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