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

• Otie Gray v. Wilburn C. Johnson
  354 F.2d 986· 6th Cir.· 1965-11-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a voluntary guilty plea waives prior constitutional violations, and the district court's findings of no coercion and a voluntary plea were supported by substantial evidence.
• Land v. Regan
  342 F.2d 92· C.C.P.A.· 1965-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board of Patent Interferences erred in awarding priority to Regan, finding that Land had sufficiently demonstrated reduction to practice prior to Regan's filing date.
• ST. Pierre v. Draper M. Harvey
  233 F.2d 337· C.C.P.A.· 1956-05-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Harvey's tests were insufficient to establish reduction to practice, and St. Pierre's evidence demonstrated earlier conception and reduction to practice for the contested patent claims.
• Fla. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hart
  73 Fla. 970· Fla.· 1917-05-04 ·cited 22×
  Florida Fire & Casualty Insurance Company appeals a jury verdict awarding Gerald Hart damages for wrongful discharge from his position as secretary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim that his employment as secretary was gu
• Valdes v. State
  320 So. 3d 235· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-04-14 ·cited 21×
  A trial court's error in applying the incorrect burden of proof at a pretrial Stand Your Ground hearing is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant is subsequently convicted at trial by jury verdict, because the state's trial burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonab
• State v. Nadim Yaqubie
  51 So. 3d 474· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-06-16 ·cited 21×
  The Third District Court of Appeal addressed the proper procedure for determining whether a defendant is entitled to immunity under Florida's Stand Your Ground law (§ 776.032). The court held that immunity claims require an evidentiary hearing where the court must determine by a
• Montanez v. State
  24 So. 3d 799· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-01-06 ·cited 21×
  Montanez, a tow truck company owner, shot and killed Glen Rich during a confrontation over a towed vehicle. Montanez sought immunity under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, claiming self-defense, but the trial court denied his motion for immunity and motion to dismiss. The appel
• Sami M. Osta v. State
  880 So. 2d 804· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-08-13 ·cited 21×
  Sami Osta appeals his adjudication of guilt for violating probation by failing to pay court-ordered restitution. The court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence that Osta had the ability to pay restitution but willfully refused to do so, as demonstrated b
• United States v. Concepcion
  983 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 21×
  The court denied a petition for rehearing en banc, allowing the prior panel decision to stand.
• United States v. Sherrod
  964 F.2d 1501· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the destruction of evidence did not violate due process, the district court's drug quantity findings were not clearly erroneous, and the DEA had the authority to schedule P2P.
• Smith v. City OF Chicago
  820 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the plaintiff's § 1983 action was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same core operative facts as his prior Shakman petition, which had been dismissed on the merits.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.
  798 F.2d 826· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over The London Club due to insufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana, but affirmed the reformation of the indemnity agreement based on mutual mistake.
• Sartain v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  601 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-08 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission's findings of violations and sanctions against Sartain were supported by substantial evidence and that Sartain's procedural due process claims were without merit.
• Tules v. Zapata
  585 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-07 ·cited 21×
  Once a habeas petitioner raises a substantial doubt about competency by clear and convincing evidence, they need only prove incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence at the ensuing hearing.
• United States v. Ecker
  543 F.2d 178· D.C. Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the patient's petition for conditional release.
• Goldman v. Olsen
  159 Fla. 435· Fla.· 1947-08-01 ·cited 21×
  Gene G. Olsen sued her brother Samuel Goldman to establish herself as equitable owner of an undivided one-half interest in certain lands. The trial court and special master found in her favor using a preponderance of the evidence standard, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed b
• Bretherick v. State
  135 So. 3d 337· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-11-01 ·cited 20×
  Jared Bretherick was charged with aggravated assault after pointing a firearm at an unarmed motorist who had cut off his family's vehicle on a highway. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Bretherick's motion to dismiss based on Florida's Stand Your Ground self-defense
• Sibilia v. Makita Corp.
  674 F. Supp. 2d 1290· M.D. Fla.· 2009-12-09 ·cited 20×
  A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence, and mere speculation based on injury severity or a plaintiff's refusal to stipulate is insufficient.
• State v. Strawser
  921 So. 2d 705· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-02-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a downward departure sentence was permissible even if not all elements of a specific statutory mitigator were met, provided other valid reasons supported the departure.
• Lynom v. State
  816 So. 2d 1218· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-05-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the State failed to prove willful violations of all alleged probation conditions, and thus the revocation order was improper.
• Santana v. State
  795 So. 2d 1112· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-10-05 ·cited 20×
  Jose Santana appeals a $6,000 restitution order for a stolen and destroyed motorcycle, arguing the amount is excessive. The court affirmed that $6,000 represents the fair market value of the motorcycle but reversed and remanded because the State failed to present evidence of salv
• United States v. Curry
  977 F.2d 1042· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the joinder of perjury counts with conspiracy counts was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification was not an abuse of discretion.
• Hines v. Sec'y OF THE Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  940 F.2d 1518· Fed. Cir.· 1991-07-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the 1989 amendments to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program do not violate Article III's case or controversy requirement, and that the court reviews the Claims Court's application of the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard de novo.
• United States v. Davis
  919 F.2d 1181· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's calculation of the base offense level for drug quantity was based on unreliable information and did not satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard.
• United States v. Dillard
  910 F.2d 461· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised release, imposing a term of incarceration, or determining the length of that sentence, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Russell
  905 F.2d 1439· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence based on firearm possession during the robbery and in departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines due to the defendant's extensive criminal history, even considering convictions beyond th
• United States v. Rexford
  903 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the defendant's sentence, holding that his constitutional challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines were foreclosed by precedent and that the district court did not err in refusing to reduce his offense level for a minor role or in imposing a special assessment.
• United States v. Bronaugh
  895 F.2d 247· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1) to enhance the sentence based on unindicted drug offenses without sufficient proof of the firearm's direct involvement.
• B.R. and W.C. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  558 So. 2d 1027· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-12-08 ·cited 20×
  B.R. and W.C., school employees, challenged their confirmation as child abusers following corporal punishment that left bruises. The court reversed the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' reliance on a "twenty-four hour rule"—an evidentiary presumption that visible
• State v. Andres
  552 So. 2d 1151· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-11-07 ·cited 20×
  The State appeals from a pretrial suppression order excluding co-conspirators' statements from a retrial on trafficking charges. The court reverses, holding that an acquittal on conspiracy does not preclude admission of co-conspirators' hearsay statements at trial on the traffick
• ABT v. State
  528 So. 2d 112· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-07-13 ·cited 20×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms a departure sentence after remand, holding that a trial court may impose a departure sentence when at least one valid reason supports it under amended Florida sentencing guidelines, and certifying conflict with the Third District regard
• Naekel v. Dep't OF Transp.
  782 F.2d 975· Fed. Cir.· 1986-01-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the agency failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee knowingly supplied false information with the intent to defraud, and that the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision sustaining the removal was unsupported by substantial eviden
• Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., Inc.
  756 F.2d 1556· Fed. Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding novelty and the burden of proof prejudiced the plaintiff, entitling it to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on patent validity.
• United States v. Alexander
  741 F.2d 962· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that forfeiture of profits requires proof that the profits existed at the time of conviction, and that mailings of tax bills can be considered in furtherance of a bribery scheme.
• Taylor v. United States Parole Comm'n
  734 F.2d 1152· 6th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 20×
  The hearsay evidence relied upon by the Parole Commission was reasonably reliable, and therefore the district court should be affirmed.
• Dempsey v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
  717 F.2d 556· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury's award of $3.1 million was excessive and ordered a remittitur of $1.5 million, while affirming the trial court's rulings on the arson defense and the submission of the bad faith claim to the jury.
• United States v. Radseck
  718 F.2d 233· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator testimony, prior similar acts evidence, and tax summary exhibits did not constitute reversible error, affirming the defendant's convictions.
• United States v. Stipe
  653 F.2d 446· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court correctly rejected the government's request for an informal order of proof and conditional rulings on evidence admissibility, and that the government's appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 was deficient.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO v. Anderson
  401 So. 2d 824· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-06-10 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Court of Appeal affirmed a Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) finding that a painters union violated fair labor practices by failing to notify non-union members of a collective bargaining agreement ratification election and their eligibility to vote. The cou
• Sandford v. R. L. Coleman Realty Co., Inc.
  573 F.2d 173· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a plaintiff's claim of error regarding jury instructions on standing will not be considered on appeal if it contradicts their consistent position throughout the trial. It also held that the denial of injunctive relief was clear error given the flagrant evidenc
• United States v. Vance Smith
  571 F.2d 370· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a district court may revoke probation when reasonably satisfied that a condition has been violated, and that hearsay evidence, if harmless, does not invalidate the revocation.
• Transammonia Exp. Corp. v. Conserv, Inc.
  554 F.2d 719· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that factual disputes regarding contract existence, breach date, and reasonableness of cover purchases were for the jury, and affirmed the jury's verdict and damages award.
• Aymond v. Texaco, Inc.
  554 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant's actions were a substantially contributing factor to the injury.
• Squillacote v. Graphic Arts Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
  540 F.2d 853· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, finding reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred and that the injunction was just and proper.
• State v. In the Interest of V. D. B.
  270 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 20×
  The standard of proof required to adjudge a juvenile delinquent for an act constituting a crime if committed by an adult is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
• Kowal v. The United States
  412 F.2d 867· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Civil Service Commission's Board of Appeals and Review erred in relying on affidavits over contradictory trial testimony when upholding a removal action, as this decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
• United States v. Bride
  308 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1962-10-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the innocence of the owner is not a defense to forfeiture of a vehicle used in illegal wagering activities, but the government must prove the vehicle's use by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Young AH Chor v. Dulles
  270 F.2d 338· 9th Cir.· 1959-09-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting testimony from a witness not intimately acquainted with the family, which was crucial to the decision, and that the cross-examination, while broad, was not an abuse of discretion.
• Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Helwig
  108 So. 2d 620· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-01-16 ·cited 20×
  In this negligence case arising from an explosion at a gasoline loading depot, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for new trial after a jury verdict for the defendant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence an
• Burch v. Reading Co.
  240 F.2d 574· 3d Cir.· 1957-01-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding the plaintiff's burden of proof constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.