Burden Of Persuasion

647 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Wilhelm v. State
  568 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 28×
  Wilhelm was convicted of DWI manslaughter after a jury instruction based on Florida's statutory presumption regarding blood-alcohol content. The Florida Supreme Court held that the instruction unconstitutionally created a mandatory rebuttable presumption that violated Wilhelm's d
• Sorba v. Pa. Drilling Co., Inc.
  821 F.2d 200· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a plaintiff in an ADEA case can defeat a summary judgment motion by presenting evidence that allows a reasonable inference that the employer's proffered non-discriminatory reason for discharge is unworthy of credence.
• United States v. Lewis
  797 F.2d 358· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, the jury instructions were proper, venue was proper, evidence of flight was admissible, and prosecutorial comments in closing argument were not unduly prejudicial.
• Davis v. Allsbrooks
  778 F.2d 168· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a suspect was not in custody for Miranda purposes and that a state's shifting of the burden of production on malice was constitutional. It also held that a procedural default at trial bars federal habeas review even if the state court discussed the merits.
• Maddox v. Claytor
  764 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie cases of discrimination for most claims and that the defendant successfully rebutted the prima facie case presented by one plaintiff.
• Royal Dev. Co., Ltd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  703 F.2d 363· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Royal Development Company violated subsections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(4) of the NLRA by refusing to rehire Schmidt due to his protected union activities and unfair labor practice charge, but denied enforcement of the 8(a)(1) charge.
• Cuddy v. Carmen
  694 F.2d 853· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that federal employees and applicants do not have a right to a jury trial under the ADEA, and therefore the district court erred in ordering a jury trial. The case is remanded for the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• The Ins. Co. OF the State OF Pa. v. The Est. OF Frank Guzman
  421 So. 2d 597· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-10-13 ·cited 28×
  An aircraft owned by Lauderdale Air Taxi, Inc. was lost while in the custody of Cavico Aircraft Sales for repairs. The jury awarded $80,000 to Lauderdale Air Taxi based on bailment and negligence theories. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding multipl
• Vaughn v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  620 F.2d 655· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that Westinghouse discriminated against Vaughn based on race when disqualifying her as a sealex machine operator, holding that Westinghouse failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action.
• Alliance Assurance Co., Ltd. v. United States
  252 F.2d 529· 2d Cir.· 1958-02-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the loss of goods from government custody gives rise to a claim under the Tucker Act for breach of implied contract and under the FTCA for negligence, and that the government failed to rebut the presumption of negligence.
• United States v. Restrepo
  832 F.2d 146· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-16 ·cited 27×
  The government's burden to support challenged facts in a presentence investigation report is to provide some reliable proof, not necessarily clear and convincing evidence, which was met in this case.
• Essie R. McDANIEL v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist.
  770 F.2d 1340· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 27×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court erred by not disclosing damaging statements made by the client's attorney to the judge, and that this error was not harmless.
• Fowler v. Blue Bell, Inc.
  737 F.2d 1007· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that subjective justifications are insufficient to meet the employer's burden of providing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for rejection, and that the applicant can prove pretext.
• Punsky v. Clay Cnty. Sheriff's Off. & Scibal Ins. Grp.
  18 So. 3d 577· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-03-06 ·cited 26×
  Robert Punsky, a deputy sheriff who suffered a heart attack while off-duty, appealed the denial of workers' compensation benefits under the firefighter's presumption statute. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that the statutory presumption was rebutt
• State v. Rygwelski
  899 So. 2d 498· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The State sought certiorari review of a trial court's order declaring section 812.155(4)(b) unconstitutional as a mandatory presumption relieving the State of its burden to prove fraudulent intent in a failure-to-return-leased-property prosecution. The appellate court held that t
• Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  873 F.2d 325· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the SEC's appeal from the district court's remand order, as it falls under the collateral order exception to the finality rule.
• Rivers v. Schweiker
  684 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the Secretary's use of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, which involve administrative notice of job existence, does not violate the Social Security Act or the due process clause.
• Pigee v. Israel
  670 F.2d 690· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-03 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury instruction unconstitutionally presumed intent, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, violating due process.
• Parsons Corp. OF Cal. & Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark v. Dir., Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't OF Labor & Gerald W. Gunter
  619 F.2d 38· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the employer bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in compensation claims, even after presenting substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, and that the employer failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome this burden.
• Hallowell v. Keve
  555 F.2d 103· 3d Cir.· 1977-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury charge improperly placed the burden of persuasion regarding provocation on the defendant, violating Mullaney v. Wilbur.
• Paivinen v. Sands
  339 F.2d 217· C.C.P.A.· 1964-12-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Board of Patent Interferences erred in finding Paivinen had not proven reduction to practice and reversed that holding, remanding for further consideration of the burden of proof and support issues.
• Mihalchak v. Am. Dredging Co.
  266 F.2d 875· 3d Cir.· 1959-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly refused to direct a verdict for the plaintiff because there was evidence supporting contrary inferences and questions of credibility for the jury.
• Cardoso v. FPB Bank
  879 So. 2d 1247· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-04-21 ·cited 25×
  A defendant sued in his home forum of Miami-Dade County to enforce a personal guarantee on a loan sought dismissal under the forum non conveniens doctrine. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the forum selection clause in the loan documents was permissive ra
• Chrysler Corp. v. Spiro Pitsirelos
  721 So. 2d 710· Fla.· 1998-09-17 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (Lemon Law) but clarified key procedural requirements for trial de novo appeals from arbitration board decisions. The Court held that the appealing party bears the burden of proof
• Baylor v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  733 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court's finding of racial discrimination was not clearly erroneous and that the exclusion of the transcript was not an abuse of discretion.
• Devosia Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
  770 F.2d 47· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably conclude that the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for the constructive discharge were pretextual, and that the employee had met her ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination.
• Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Dir., Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't OF Labor, & Jesse Sainz
  748 F.2d 1426· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Administrative Law Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the employer failed to rebut the interim presumption of disability under the Black Lung Benefits Act.
• United States v. Charles
  738 F.2d 686· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendants were not in custody when they made their statements, thus not requiring Miranda warnings, and that even if they were, the government proved the statements were voluntary. The district court's suppression order is reversed.
• United States v. Tucker
  716 F.2d 576· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's incompetence, which prejudiced his defense.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. NEW York Univ. Med. Ctr.
  702 F.2d 284· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the leafleting activity was protected under the Act, and discipline stemming directly from it violated § 8(a)(1). However, the court remanded the case regarding the final disciplinary actions (discharge and suspension) to re-evaluate the employer's motive unde
• Baker v. Muncy
  619 F.2d 327· 4th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 24×
  Jury instructions that created a mandatory presumption of premeditation unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof from the State to the defendant, violating due process.
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report 2011-01
  73 So. 3d 136· Fla.· 2011-09-08 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to standard criminal jury instructions pertaining to fleeing a law enforcement officer and aggravation of a felony, with minor modifications to clarify that certain aggravating offenses must be personally committed by the defendant.
• Thomas v. Leeke
  725 F.2d 246· 4th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 23×
  The trial court's jury instructions were constitutionally adequate, and the state's allocation of the burden of proving self-defense to the defendant does not violate due process.
• Terman Foods, Inc. v. Omega Lines
  707 F.2d 1225· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the carrier was liable under COGSA for spoilage due to failure to maintain proper temperatures, but reversed the judgment against the vessel for lack of jurisdiction.
• United States v. Richard W. (Dick) Rylander, Sr.
  656 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a defendant's detailed sworn denial of knowledge regarding subpoenaed records is sufficient to meet the burden of production for an inability to comply defense.
• Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc.
  8th Cir.· 2009-06-18 ·cited 22×
  The Court's interpretation of 'because of' requires a plaintiff to prove that age was the 'but-for' cause of an adverse employment action, not merely a motivating factor.
• Bowden v. State
  787 So. 2d 185· Fla. 1st DCA· 2001-05-15 ·cited 22×
  Cecil Bowden appeals his convictions for burglary, resisting officers with violence, and criminal mischief. The court affirms the trial court's denial of his challenge to a peremptory strike of the only African-American venireperson but reverses one conviction for resisting an of
• Hicks v. ST. Mary's Honor Ctr.
  970 F.2d 487· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that once a plaintiff proves the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for adverse employment actions are pretextual, no additional proof of discriminatory intent is required to prevail on a Title VII claim.
• TYE v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the Polaris Joint Vocational Sch. Dist.
  811 F.2d 315· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination in a reduction in force situation.
• United States v. Godofredo Martir
  782 F.2d 1141· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that no combination of release conditions would reasonably assure the defendant's presence at trial, despite the defendant presenting evidence to rebut the presumption of flight.
• King v. Palmer
  778 F.2d 878· D.C. Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 22×
  A plaintiff in a Title VII case who establishes a prima facie case and discredits the employer's proffered explanation for the adverse action prevails, even without direct evidence of discrimination or proof of consummated sexual relations.
• Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc.
  768 F.2d 1120· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding no intentional discrimination, and that comparative statistics lacked probative value for skilled positions without accounting for qualifications and availability.
• Nash v. The Consol. City OF Jacksonville
  763 F.2d 1393· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 22×
  A Black firefighter challenged his non-promotion to lieutenant based on a written examination under Title VII's disparate impact theory. The district court found the test was job-related and business necessary, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed as clearly erroneous because the tr
• Johnson v. Transp. Agency
  770 F.2d 752· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-04 ·cited 22×
  The court should have remanded the case for the district court to properly allocate burdens of proof and persuasion regarding the affirmative action plan and to conduct a detailed factual analysis of the plan's validity.
• Myers v. State OF Wash.
  646 F.2d 355· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The majority opinion holds that the Wainwright v. Sykes rule is not implicated by the defendant's jury instruction claim, and that even if it were, the defendant satisfied the cause and prejudice requirements. The dissent disagrees with both holdings.
• United States v. Arboleda
  633 F.2d 985· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the ledge and therefore could not challenge the seizure of the package thrown onto it. The conviction is affirmed.
• White v. Mar-Bel, Inc.
  509 F.2d 287· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the patent for a plastic cutting device was valid and infringed, reversing the district court's judgment of invalidity.
• Helfrich v. State
  272 So. 3d 454· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-03-20 ·cited 21×
  Tod Geoffrey Helfrich appeals his conviction for grand theft auto, fraudulent use of personal information, fraudulent use of a credit card, robbery with a deadly weapon, and felony murder as a habitual offender, challenging a peremptory juror strike and the trial court's failure
• Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC v. Hortensia Palmira Garcia
  991 So. 2d 912· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-08-06 ·cited 21×
  This consolidated appeal addresses whether four product liability cases arising from Ford Explorer rollovers in Argentina should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of defendants' motions to d
• Knight v. State
  919 So. 2d 628· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-01-25 ·cited 21×
  Alex Knight was convicted by jury of theft and burglary of an occupied structure for entering a locked training room at a computer company and taking a computer. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, rejecting Knight's challenges to the prosecutor's perempto