Burden Of Persuasion

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

• Hlad v. State
  565 So. 2d 762· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-07-19 ·cited 8×
  Albert Hlad, Jr. appealed his conviction for a fourth DUI offense, arguing that his prior 1978 DUI conviction was uncounseled and therefore could not be used to enhance his current conviction from a misdemeanor to a felony under the Sixth Amendment. The Florida Fifth District Cou
• Young v. State
  567 So. 2d 2· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The Youngs appealed land clearing permits that were denied by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission after the Commission affirmed a hearing officer's ruling that the Youngs bore the burden of proof. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that applicants
• Arnold v. United States Postal Serv.
  863 F.2d 994· D.C. Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Career Path Policy, when viewed in its entirety, did not have a disparate impact on older postal inspectors and that the senior-first transfer rule was not a pretext for age discrimination.
• Brown v. Bowen
  847 F.2d 342· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the administrative law judge's decision denying benefits was supported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ could rationally distinguish between the lower burden of proof for excusing repayment and the higher 'clear and convincing' standard required for establi
• United States v. Eligio Palmer-Contreras and Jose A. Casanova Ortiz
  835 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in detaining the defendants, finding that the rebuttable presumption of flight under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) was properly applied given the large quantity of cocaine and the defendants' potential ties to a sophisticated drug operatio
• Sims v. Cleland
  813 F.2d 790· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the falsity of one of multiple independent, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for an employment decision does not automatically establish pretext for discrimination.
• Sherrial T. ST. Amant v. Benoit
  806 F.2d 1294· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's section 1983 claim was time-barred because the April 8, 1982 letter, combined with the city's silence, provided sufficient notice that his transfer request had been denied.
• Turner v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  771 F.2d 341· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a jury trial on the counterclaim for specific performance of a settlement agreement in a FELA case, but committed reversible error in instructing the jury that the defendant railroad had the burden of proving the atto
• Ford v. Chancellor Roy S. Nicks
  741 F.2d 858· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district judge erred in shifting the burden of persuasion to the employer in Lani Ford's Title VII sex discrimination case, requiring remand. However, the court affirmed the district judge's findings regarding William C. Ford's retaliation claim, including
• Val H. Curry v. Okla. GAS & Elec. Co.
  730 F.2d 598· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly applied Title VII burden-shifting rules and did not err in finding that the employer's stated reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination.
• E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co. (Chestnut RUN) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  724 F.2d 1061· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board's order could not be enforced due to the ALJ and Board's failure to apply the correct burden of proof and causation standards, and the lack of clear articulation of the basis for their findings.
• Olafson v. The Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  651 F.2d 393· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's burden of proof in a Title VII case is to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision, which, if met, shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to prove intentional discrimination or pretext.
• Simon v. Honeywell, Inc.
  642 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's judgment must be vacated and remanded due to inadequate findings of fact and failure to apply the correct legal standards for discrimination claims.
• Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. The United States
  579 F.2d 586· Ct. Cl.· 1978-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court should not dismiss any part of the petition and should remand all parts of the claim to the NASA Board for determination of quantum.
• Farrell v. Czarnetzky
  566 F.2d 381· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-30 ·cited 8×
  The New York first degree robbery statute, which places the burden of proving an affirmative defense on the defendant, is constitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v. New York.
• Brown v. State
  334 So. 2d 597· Fla.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 8×
  Claude Brown III was convicted of perjury by inconsistent statement under Florida Statute Section 837.021 after making contradictory sworn statements about his whereabouts. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute, rejecting Brown's argument that it v
• Spearman v. Viva Spearman
  482 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the second wife did not qualify as the insured's 'lawful widow' because she failed to establish the termination of the insured's first marriage, and she also failed to qualify as a 'putative spouse' due to a lack of good faith belief in the marriage's validity
• Application of Arthur F. Wagner and Karl A. Folkers
  371 F.2d 877· C.C.P.A.· 1967-02-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board of Appeals erred in affirming the examiner's rejection of claims for new chemical compounds, as the prior art did not sufficiently suggest the claimed substitutions would enhance viral inhibitory activity.
• Pinehurst, Inc. v. Schlamowitz
  351 F.2d 509· 4th Cir.· 1965-10-06 ·cited 8×
  A bailee is not liable for the loss of goods if they present evidence that they exercised ordinary care and the cause of the loss is undetermined, as the burden of persuasion on want of due diligence remains with the bailor.
• Dostal v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
  189 F.2d 352· 3d Cir.· 1951-05-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the 'incontrovertible physical facts' rule did not apply because the physical facts were disputed and required witness testimony, and that the jury instructions regarding the presumption of due care and the absence of safety measures were not prejudicial error
• Lathenia Joy Baker v. Upson Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  94 F.4th 1312· 11th Cir.· 2024-03-08 ·cited 7×
  The Eleventh Circuit clarified that the Equal Pay Act analysis involves only two steps and does not require a plaintiff to prove pretext after the employer asserts an affirmative defense. However, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding the employer met its burd
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2015-04
  190 So. 3d 614· Fla.· 2016-04-14 ·cited 7×
  The Florida Supreme Court authorized amendments to six existing criminal jury instructions and one new instruction, updating language regarding burden of persuasion, affirmative defenses, and statutory definitions to reflect current case law and legislative changes.
• In re Jane DOE 13-A
  136 So. 3d 748· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-04-11 ·cited 7×
• Comprehensive Med. Access, Inc. v. Off. OF Ins. Reg.
  983 So. 2d 45· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-05-05 ·cited 7×
  Comprehensive Medical Access, Inc. sought approval of a health flex plan from the Office of Insurance Regulation, which denied the application based solely on allegations contained in a pending federal civil complaint against the company's owner. The court reversed, holding that
• Adolf Lony v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  886 F.2d 628· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider the deference due a foreign plaintiff's choice of forum and by misapplying the balancing of private interest factors in its forum non conveniens analysis.
• E. S. I. Meats, Inc. v. Gulf Fla. Terminal Co. & Cont'l Ins. Co.
  639 F.2d 1348· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed findings on causation and Borden's damages but remanded for recomputation of damages for E.S.I. and Crest, and affirmed the award of prejudgment interest.
• Decisionhr USA, Inc. v. Mills
  341 So. 3d 448· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court granted a petition for certiorari, quashing a trial court's order that denied a motion for a protective order. The court found that the trial court failed to apply the newly codified "apex doctrine" which protects high-level corporate officers from depositions
• State v. Gainesville Woman Care LLC
  187 So. 3d 279· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-02-26 ·cited 6×
  Florida appealed a trial court's temporary injunction blocking enforcement of a 2015 law imposing a 24-hour waiting period for abortion procedures. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court's injunction order deficient in factual findings, evidentiary support, and leg
• Berube v. State
  149 So. 3d 1165· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-10-24 ·cited 6×
  Leo Richard Berube appealed his second-degree murder conviction following remand from the Florida Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Daniels v. State. The District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that an erroneous jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of manslaug
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases- Report NO. 2013-06
  148 So. 3d 1204· Fla.· 2014-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court authorized amendments and new standard jury instructions in criminal cases as proposed by the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, including modifications to instructions on attempted homicide, sexual offender/predator
• Rickie Joe Bradley v. State
  127 So. 3d 806· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-11-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an erroneous comma in a self-defense jury instruction did not constitute fundamental error when the attorneys correctly explained the law and the evidence for self-defense was weak.
• Bellamy v. Crosby
  31 So. 3d 895· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The Florida appellate court reversed Timothy Bellamy's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to properly apply the Batson v. Kentucky analysis when evaluating the state's peremptory challenges that removed two black jurors. The trial court e
• Alexie Ibarrondo v. State
  1 So. 3d 226· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-12-24 ·cited 6×
  Alexie Ibarrondo appeals his conviction for felony driving under the influence with three prior DUI convictions and driving while license suspended with two prior convictions. The appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial due to two trial court errors: seating a biased
• Haines v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  983 So. 2d 602· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-04-11 ·cited 6×
  Barbara Haines appeals the Department of Children and Families' revocation of her foster care license for allegedly striking a foster child. The court reverses, holding that the preponderance of evidence standard—not the competent substantial evidence standard—applies to foster c
• Brake v. State
  746 So. 2d 527· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-12-10 ·cited 6×
  James Brake appealed his conviction for luring or enticing a child under section 787.025, challenging the constitutionality of the statute on vagueness grounds. The Florida District Court of Appeal agreed that the term "other than a lawful purpose" is unconstitutionally vague and
• Maher Terminals, Inc. v. Dir., Off. OF Workers Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  992 F.2d 1277· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The Administrative Procedure Act prohibits the application of the 'true doubt' rule in cases under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as it allows a claimant to prevail without meeting the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence.
• In re Sunset BAY Assocs. v. Eureka Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  944 F.2d 1503· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The majority improperly reversed summary judgment because there were no specific facts showing the lender had actual knowledge of the subordination agreement's terms.
• Ival S. Wilson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  932 F.2d 510· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-06 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the directed verdict for the employer on the age discrimination claim, finding insufficient evidence that age was a determining factor, and affirmed summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding it was not properly appealed and lacked merit.
• Wrenn v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Veterans Affairs & Clark C. Gran-inger, Dir., Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr.
  918 F.2d 1073· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-16 ·cited 6×
  An employment discrimination claimant who rejects an offer of full relief during administrative proceedings may not continue to press his claims in a civil action.
• Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Auto Body Panels OF Ohio, Inc.
  908 F.2d 951· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chrysler's motion for a preliminary injunction because Chrysler failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• In re Taxman Clothing Co., Inc.
  905 F.2d 166· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the going-concern value of the inventory, not the auction price, is the relevant valuation for determining solvency in a voidable preference case. The uncontradicted evidence of going-concern value supported solvency, thus the trustee could not recover.
• Zamlen v. The City OF Cleveland
  906 F.2d 209· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statistical evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination under § 1983, and that the exclusion of female firefighters' testimony, while improper, did not result in substantial injustice. The court affirme
• Hall v. Ira Kelso
  892 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 6×
  A jury instruction creating a mandatory presumption that the acts of a person of sound mind are the product of their will violates the Due Process Clause by relieving the state of its burden to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Dick v. Kemp
  833 F.2d 1448· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion on intent was not harmless error because the issue of intent was squarely before the jury and the evidence of intent was not overwhelming.
• Whitfield v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
  820 F.2d 243· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the doctrine of laches to bar the plaintiff's Title VII action due to unreasonable and unexcused delay and resulting prejudice to the defendant.
• Glismann v. AT & T Techs., Inc.
  827 F.2d 262· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's verdict of no age discrimination was supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court did not err in its rulings.
• Mills v. Ford Motor Co.
  800 F.2d 635· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the test for intentional sex discrimination under Title VII and did not err in finding that Ford Motor Company discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of sex.
• Ames v. NEW York State Div. OF Parole
  772 F.2d 13· 2d Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 6×
  A defendant's guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by failure to inform them of an affirmative defense, especially when the burden of persuasion for that defense rests on the defendant.
• Knighton v. The Laurens Cnty. Sch. Dist. NO. 56 & Charles L. Cummins, Jr.
  721 F.2d 976· 4th Cir.· 1983-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by not determining if a history of racial discrimination or intentional segregative action required the defendants to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie case with clear and convincing evidence.
• Lino Martinez v. EL Paso Cnty.
  710 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer's stated reason for termination was pretext for discrimination and affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, but denied the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding back pay.