(requiring clear and convincing evidence of intentional violations, neglect, and an effort to mislead Disciplinary Counsel); Chan v. Chan, 7 Haw.App. 122, 748 P.2d 807 (1987) (requiring clear and convincing proof that the defendant had power to comply with order and failed to do so); Mehau v. Gannett Pacific Corp., 66 Haw. 133, 658 P.2d 312 (1983) (requiring clear and convincing proof of defamation); Woodruff v. Keale, 64 Haw. 85, 637 P.2d 760 (1981) (requiring clear and convincing evidence that the severance of the natural parent-child tie be in the child’s best interest); Tanuvasa v. City and County of Honolulu, 2 Haw.App. 102, 626 P.2d 1175 (1981) (instructing the jury that malice must be shown by clear and convincing evidence); Boteil-ho v. Boteilho, 58 Haw. 40, 564 P.2d 144 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The other case cited by the majority, i.e.,
holding that if part performance is relied upon to remove the oral agreement from the operation of the statute of frauds clear and convincing proof of performance in pursuance of the alleged agreement must be adduced by the party seeking to enforce it holding a court must find among other things clear evidence of the existence of an oral agreement for part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract holding in part that party seeking reformation of deed must show the original intent or agreement of parties by clear and convincing evidence holding sufficient part performance of an oral trust agreement is required to remove it from the statute of frauds