Preponderance Of The Evidence

3,085 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 56 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Coppola
  486 F.2d 882· 10th Cir.· 1973-10-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a jury instruction on preponderance of the evidence, when viewed in the context of the entire charge, was harmless error, and that pretrial identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive.
• State v. Graham
  240 So. 2d 486· Fla. 2d DCA· 1970-10-30 ·cited 24×
  Florida appeals the trial court's suppression of defendant Graham's confession. The appellate court holds that the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Miranda warnings were given, were adequate, and that any waiver was knowing and intelligent, and reverses for
• O'Brien v. Willys Motors, Inc.
  385 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1967-11-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on the defendant's burden to prove contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence was an exceptional error that could be reviewed despite no objection being made.
• Martin K. EBY Constr. Co., Inc. v. Neely
  344 F.2d 482· 10th Cir.· 1965-04-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to establish negligence or proximate cause, and therefore a directed verdict for the defendant should have been granted.
• Sheiner v. State
  82 So. 2d 657· Fla.· 1955-07-29 ·cited 24×
  Leo Sheiner, a lawyer in Florida, was disbarred based on his refusal to answer questions about Communist Party membership before a congressional committee and his invocation of the Fifth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the disbarment, holding that while Communist Pa
• United States v. 449 Cases
  212 F.2d 567· 2d Cir.· 1954-04-22 ·cited 24×
  The court's majority opinion is not provided, but the dissenting judge argues that the district court's order should be affirmed due to the Administrator's non-compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
• United States v. Crescent-Kelvan Co.
  164 F.2d 582· 3d Cir.· 1948-01-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions were insufficient regarding the definition of 'common or usual name' for misbranding and confusing on the standard of proof (reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence), necessitating reversal.
• Fernstrom v. Taylor
  107 Fla. 490· Fla.· 1933-01-02 ·cited 24×
  Collateral heirs of Alma Larsen challenged the validity of her will on grounds of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the probate court's dismissal of the challenge, holding that the trial court properly found testamentary capacit
• Williams v. State
  32 Fla. 251· Fla.· 1893-06-01 ·cited 24×
  Joe Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's jury instruction regarding alibi evidence, but the Supreme Court found no such instruction in the record and affirmed the conviction because the eviden
• Ketan Kumar v. Nirav C. Patel
  227 So. 3d 557· Fla.· 2017-09-28 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant's Stand Your Ground immunity determination in a criminal proceeding does not bind a civil plaintiff and therefore does not confer immunity from civil liability. The Court rejected the Second District's interpretation that the statut
• D.A. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs.
  84 So. 3d 1136· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-03-28 ·cited 23×
  Father appeals from a dependency adjudication of his minor child based on his untreated mental health disorder and substance abuse problems. The court affirms the adjudication, holding that prospective risk of harm—not actual harm—may support a dependency finding for a parent in
• In the Interest of J.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  824 So. 2d 1023· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-08-30 ·cited 23×
  The father challenged a dependency order finding his minor child dependent based solely on the father's health problems (congestive heart failure, diabetes, hepatitis B, and hypertension). The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the Department failed to establish the r
• In the Interest of D.J.W. v. State
  764 So. 2d 825· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-07-28 ·cited 23×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order adjudicating the child dependent, finding sufficient competent substantial evidence to support the findings of abuse and neglect.
• United States v. Huddleston
  811 F.2d 974· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard, not clear and convincing proof, governs the admissibility of similar acts evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), and that any errors in admitting evidence or instructing the jury were harmless.
• 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.
• Dianne D. and David L. Sprayberry v. Sheffield Auto & Truck Serv., Inc.
  422 So. 2d 1073· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-12-06 ·cited 23×
  The Sprayberrys sued Sheffield Auto for fraud in selling them a truck, and the trial court directed a verdict against them on the basis that fraud requires clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court resolved a conflict among Florida courts by holding that fraud claims req
• Tamra Suzanne Leasure v. State
  105 So. 3d 5· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-10-24 ·cited 22×
  Tamra Leasure was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting Arthur Tilley three times in her kitchen. She appealed claiming entitlement to immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law and alternatively that the State failed to rebut her self-defense claim. The appellate co
• The Place AT Vero Beach, Inc. v. Hanson
  953 So. 2d 773· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The Place at Vero Beach appeals the denial of its motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation in a wrongful death case. The court held that the arbitration clause in the resident admission agreement was unenforceable because AHLA rules requiring clear and convincing evidence
• Hanania v. State
  855 So. 2d 92· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-06-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the state failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probation violations were willful and substantial.
• Stevens v. State
  823 So. 2d 319· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-08-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the probationer willfully and substantially violated probation by falsifying community service records and failing to pay costs, but affirmed the finding of failing to perform community service hours in equal mo
• State v. Jenkins
  762 So. 2d 535· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-05-24 ·cited 22×
  A nolle prosequi of a criminal charge does not preclude a probation violation proceeding based on that charge, as the state need only prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
• McCLOUD v. State
  741 So. 2d 512· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-01-08 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed a judgment and sentence, holding that the trial court, not the jury, is to determine factual predicates for scoring points on a scoresheet, including whether penetration occurred in a sexual battery case.
• J.M. v. State
  677 So. 2d 890· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-06-26 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a juvenile's commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The court found that the trial court's reasons for departing from HRS's recommended community control program were not supported by a prepond
• United States v. Sabatino
  943 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, that evidentiary rulings were proper or harmless, and that sentencing adjustments for obstruction of justice and leading role were appropriate, but vacated
• United States v. Underwood
  938 F.2d 1086· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court failed to state its reasons for imposing a sentence, requiring a remand for resentencing. The court also instructed the district court to make findings regarding firearm possession.
• United States v. Frank
  956 F.2d 872· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 22×
  A jury should be instructed on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity when properly raised, unless the defendant requests otherwise.
• United States v. Feinman
  930 F.2d 495· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in departing upward from the defendant's criminal history category based on factors already accounted for in the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. MacKlin
  927 F.2d 1272· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence against Swain was sufficient for conviction, and the district court correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard at sentencing.
• United States v. Wyckoff
  918 F.2d 925· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that using a prior felony conviction to both determine the base offense level and calculate the criminal history score under the Sentencing Guidelines does not constitute impermissible double counting. The court also held that the defendant failed to establish by a
• Wynfield Inns v. The Edward Leroux Grp., Inc.
  896 F.2d 483· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Wynfield's acceptance of a quantum meruit judgment barred its appeal of the directed verdict on its contract claim due to the doctrines of election of remedies and acceptance of benefits. The court also affirmed the directed verdict on fraud and RICO claims, f
• United States v. Powell
  886 F.2d 81· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on drug courier profile characteristics, flight, and incriminating statements, and that the government's failure to disclose the identity of an intermeddler was harmless error. The court also hel
• United States v. Ovie L. Duncan
  870 F.2d 1532· 10th Cir.· 1989-03-21 ·cited 22×
  A sentencing court may order restitution for losses resulting from criminal acts that are significantly connected to the offense for which a guilty plea was entered, even if those acts were not part of the plea.
• United States v. Chestang
  849 F.2d 528· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that coconspirator statements were properly admitted, the government's discovery violation was harmless, the admission of check endorsements was harmless error, and the district court's prejudicial remark was cured by a corrective instruction.
• Kareem Faheem-El v. Klincar
  841 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-25 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Crawley
  837 F.2d 291· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 22×
  A statement in a prior opinion that was unnecessary to the decision and not essential to the analytical foundation is dictum and not binding precedent.
• United States v. Griley
  814 F.2d 967· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the government's change in sentencing recommendation for a witness was unorthodox, it did not constitute reversible error because the witness accurately described the initial plea agreement terms to the jury, and the subsequent change was a surprise to t
• In the Interest of C.S.
  503 So. 2d 417· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-03-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the order adjudicating a child dependent was facially insufficient due to a lack of required factual findings and that the evidence did not support a finding of neglect by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Sanders v. United States Postal Serv.
  801 F.2d 1328· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision affirming the removal of an employee for dealing in cocaine was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis, despite reliance on hearsay evidence.
• Ferris v. Austin
  487 So. 2d 1163· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-04-24 ·cited 22×
  Thomas Ferris, a teacher accused of sexually abusing a male student, appeals the School Board's rejection of an administrative hearing officer's recommended order for reinstatement. The court reverses, holding that the School Board improperly rejected the hearing officer's findin
• McMAHON v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  774 F.2d 830· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict for the defendant, as there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the defendant manufactured the DES and that the defendant knew or should have known of its dangerous propensities. The court als
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Bair
  766 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Iowa's tax scheme discriminated against Burlington Northern by denying it personal property tax benefits, and that the district court erred in its equalization claim analysis regarding property aggregation and burden of proof.
• Smallwood v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  728 F.2d 614· 4th Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding backpay because the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff would not have been hired anyway, even absent age discrimination.
• United States v. Luce
  713 F.2d 1236· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 22×
  A preliminary ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant does not testify at trial.
• Thaddeus J. Kochanny v. The Bureau OF Alcohol
  694 F.2d 698· Fed. Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an employee's removal for unacceptable performance can be sustained under Chapter 75 of the Civil Service Reform Act, even if initially processed under Chapter 43, provided the agency demonstrates compliance with Chapter 75 standards.
• Beardshall v. Minuteman Press Int'l, Inc.
  664 F.2d 23· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that fraud must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, when Pennsylvania law requires clear and convincing evidence, and by submitting a prejudicial written supplemental instruction.
• United States v. Fontanez
  628 F.2d 687· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator hearsay statements was not erroneous, and the conviction on Count I is affirmed, but the case is remanded for resentencing on Count II due to a statutory sentencing limit violation.
• Sharpless v. Califano
  585 F.2d 664· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The Secretary is authorized to make credibility determinations between different readers of chest x-rays in black lung benefit proceedings, and the claimant failed to prove pneumoconiosis by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Breeden v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  493 F.2d 1002· 4th Cir.· 1974-03-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Social Security Administration claimant need only prove coverage by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence, and that the administrative decision denying benefits was not supported by substantial evidence.
• Ramsey v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  416 F.2d 655· 6th Cir.· 1969-09-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act's 'clear proof' standard applies only to proving the authority of officers, members, or agents to act for a labor union, not to all elements of an antitrust violation claim against a union. The standard for proving antitru
• EL Ranco, Inc. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Nev.
  406 F.2d 1205· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's verdicts on the contract and conspiracy claims were supported by sufficient evidence, and that various procedural and evidentiary objections raised by the appellants were without merit.