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

• In re Allison v. Crescentia R. Roberts
  960 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a debt obtained by false pretenses or fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) is nondischargeable if the creditor actually relied on the debtor's misrepresentation, and reasonable reliance is not a required element. The debt of the spouse who did not participate
• United States v. Granados
  962 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that defendants could be held responsible for the full amount of cocaine in the conspiracy if foreseeable, and that the mere presence of a firearm at a drug trafficking scene constitutes 'use' for enhancement purposes. The court also remanded for specific findings
• Glasscock v. Armstrong Cork Co.
  946 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that sufficient evidence supported the compensatory and punitive damage awards, and that Celotex was liable as a successor corporation for pre-acquisition conduct.
• Bennie Brewer v. Chauvin
  938 F.2d 860· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 14×
  A plaintiff awarded back pay for a procedural due process violation must prove that the deprivation of property would not have occurred if proper procedures had been followed; otherwise, back pay is a windfall.
• United States v. Ronald Hodges (90-1124/1260)
  935 F.2d 766· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing of Ronald Hodges due to the erroneous refusal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. The court held that drug quantity and firearm possession are sentencing factors, not elements of the offense, and can be determined b
• United States v. Isidro Moreno (90-5832)
  933 F.2d 362· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for mistrial based on jury exposure to defendants' custodial status, nor in denying motions for severance or continuance, and that the government could cross-examine a defendant on prior incons
• United States v. Elgersma
  929 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the burden of proving criminal forfeiture is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather a preponderance of the evidence standard applies.
• United States v. Madkour
  930 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 14×
  A jury finding of drug quantity is not required for the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), and such quantity is determined by the judge at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Stephenson
  928 F.2d 728· 6th Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in revoking supervised release due to insufficient reliable evidence of violations and a failure to provide a written statement of relied-upon evidence and reasons.
• Donnell R. Mattingly v. United States
  924 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government's burden of proof under 26 U.S.C. § 6701 is by a preponderance of the evidence, and while a willful blindness jury instruction is imperfect, it was harmless error in this case. However, the government may not impose a § 6701 penalty on carryover
• United States v. COX
  923 F.2d 519· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 14×
  A district court has discretion to reject a guilty plea, even an Alford plea, if the defendant protests innocence and the court has concerns about systemic legitimacy. The court also affirmed the use of a Santiago proffer procedure, even if ex parte, when it does not prejudice th
• United States v. Todd
  920 F.2d 399· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-04 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that a coordinate court is not bound by prior evidentiary rulings from a mistrial and that the district court's reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines were inadequate.
• United States v. Jones
  900 F.2d 512· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the convictions for false declarations and obstruction of justice but vacated the sentence, finding insufficient evidence to support the Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for substantially interfering with the administration of justice.
• Tomlinson v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  558 So. 2d 62· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-01-31 ·cited 14×
  Robert Tomlinson, a state employee with 28 years of service, was separated for constructive abandonment after failing to contact his supervisor during a five-day illness. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the Department of Administration's affirmance of the separation
• United States v. Hilton
  894 F.2d 485· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the quantity of marijuana involved, supporting the penalty enhancement.
• Velez v. State
  554 So. 2d 545· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-11-22 ·cited 14×
  Hector and Ruiz Velez were convicted of cocaine trafficking after police found contraband in their car following a traffic stop. They appealed arguing the initial stop was pretextual and tainted their consent to search. The court affirmed, holding the stop was valid under the Keh
• Dohmen-Ramirez v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & Ronald Ho
  837 F.2d 847· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) did not err in affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding that Handy was acting as an agent for Dohmen-Ramirez and Wellington, making them liable for Handy's fraudulent acts under the Commodity Exchan
• Walker v. Endell
  850 F.2d 470· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that placing the burden on the defendant to prove duress is constitutional, state appellate review for plain error bypasses procedural default, and a sentencing judge may consider facts related to a contemporaneous acquittal.
• State v. Caudle
  504 So. 2d 419· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The State appealed a circuit court's reversal of a county court's denial of Caudle's motion to vacate his DUI sentence based on alleged constitutional violations in prior convictions. The court held that a defendant challenging prior convictions used for sentence enhancement bear
• In re Interest of C.W. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  490 So. 2d 175· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a dependency adjudication of an infant based on neglect, finding that the state failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the child's weight loss resulted from neglect rather than the mother's lack of education regar
• In the Interest of J.H. v. State
  480 So. 2d 680· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-12-23 ·cited 14×
  Dorothy Hall appeals the trial court's finding that her three minor children were dependent based on neglect and placement in foster care. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the state failed to establish neglect by a preponderance of the evidence an
• Lindahl v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  776 F.2d 276· Fed. Cir.· 1985-10-22 ·cited 14×
  The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) did not err in placing the burden of proof on a voluntary applicant for civil service disability retirement to establish entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Adler v. The Educ. Dep't OF the State OF NEW York
  760 F.2d 454· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to New York's Article 78 proceedings is the appropriate statute of limitations for actions brought under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA).
• Miller v. Keating
  754 F.2d 507· 3d Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a statement by an unidentified declarant, admitted as an excited utterance, was inadmissible because the proponent failed to demonstrate the declarant had personal knowledge of the event and was under the stress of excitement.
• Cavalier Carpets, Inc. v. Caylor
  746 F.2d 749· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's jury instruction on reliance was correct for a mixed misrepresentation and omission case, and an erroneous scienter instruction was harmless error.
• United States v. Offutt
  736 F.2d 1199· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, finding sufficient evidence for conviction, and denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
• United States v. Maylon K. London
  714 F.2d 1558· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that using photocopied signatures on a false document constitutes forgery under 18 U.S.C. § 505, and that venue was proper where the defendant concurred in using the forged document. However, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not apply to false statements made in private civil
• Schramm v. Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  682 F.2d 85· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 14×
  An agency must justify its decision to deny a within-grade pay increase by a preponderance of the evidence, not merely substantial evidence.
• White v. Estelle
  669 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 14×·via Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence
  The court held that the federal habeas review standard for a state court jury's competency verdict is whether any rational trier of fact could conclude the evidence does not predominate in favor of incompetence, viewing evidence favorably to the verdict.
• United States v. Mastrangelo
  662 F.2d 946· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-28 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause requires reversal because the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity and viable alternatives existed.
• Whaley v. State
  382 So. 2d 802· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-04-11 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Medina-Herrera
  606 F.2d 770· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's retrial did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and his attorney's representation of co-indictees did not create an actual conflict of interest requiring the trial court to inquire further.
• Mrs. Menetta G. Neal v. United States
  562 F.2d 338· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant's alleged negligence in failing to warn of wake turbulence was the proximate cause of the crash.
• United States v. Ladley
  517 F.2d 1190· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the arrest was supported by probable cause, the entrapment defense was not established as a matter of law, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Wiggins
  509 F.2d 454· D.C. Cir.· 1975-01-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding three prior unrelated killings was prejudicial error requiring reversal, but that the defendant's statements made to police were admissible and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defense counsel's exami
• Ramsey v. The United Mine Workers OF Am.
  481 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove an antitrust conspiracy, holding that the district judge's findings were not clearly erroneous and that his prior statement regarding a potential conspiracy under a preponderance standard was dict
• United States v. Simpson
  475 F.2d 934· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that his counsel falsely represented assurances from the judge regarding sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Watson
  469 F.2d 362· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, given his medical condition at the time of interrogation. The court remanded f
• FOR Adults Only, Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein
  257 So. 2d 912· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-01-18 ·cited 14×
  For Adults Only, Inc. appealed a permanent injunction issued under Florida's obscenity statute prohibiting the sale and distribution of certain sexually explicit materials. The court affirmed the injunction, rejecting constitutional challenges to the statute and finding the defen
• Clarke v. Burke
  440 F.2d 853· 7th Cir.· 1971-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying habeas relief, as there was no sufficient showing that the prosecutor suppressed evidence favorable to the petitioner that was vital and material to the outcome.
• Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  436 F.2d 551· 6th Cir.· 1970-12-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the elimination of 'no strike' clauses and the word 'exclusively' from the collective bargaining agreement did not render the obligation to use the grievance procedure unenforceable, and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the UMW responsib
• Helene Obolensky v. Raoul Saldana Schmier
  409 F.2d 52· 1st Cir.· 1969-04-16 ·cited 14×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding no clear error in the determination that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's treatment proximately caused her disability.
• Rumsey v. The Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc.
  408 F.2d 89· 3d Cir.· 1969-03-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support a rational inference that the lettuce was on the floor long enough to charge the defendant with constructive notice.
• Beeber v. Krogh
  403 F.2d 743· C.C.P.A.· 1968-11-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence, when considered as a whole, provided sufficient corroboration for the inventor's testimony, establishing actual reduction to practice prior to the appellees' filing date.
• Esquire Rest., Inc. v. The Commonwealth Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  393 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1968-03-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper, and the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Clauss v. Foulke
  379 F.2d 586· C.C.P.A.· 1967-06-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they reduced the invention to practice prior to the senior party's filing date because they did not know the identity or quantity of the active material used in their experiments.
• Kelly v. Threlkeld
  193 So. 2d 7· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-12-05 ·cited 14×
  The court reversed a trial court's denial of reformation of a deed due to mutual mistake, holding that the trial judge improperly applied an excessive evidentiary standard to the affirmative defense of insufficient consideration and failed to weigh properly the nephew's evidence
• Gould v. Schawlow
  363 F.2d 908· C.C.P.A.· 1966-08-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the patent applicant did not establish conception of non-reflective side walls, rendering the discussion of diligence unnecessary.
• Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. & Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Broward Williams
  188 So. 2d 368· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-07-07 ·cited 14×
  Nationwide Insurance appealed the Insurance Commissioner's denial of its requested automobile insurance rate increases in Florida. The court upheld the Commissioner's denial, holding that Nationwide failed to provide substantial evidence supporting a uniform statewide rate increa
• Conn. Fire Ins. Co. v. FOX
  361 F.2d 1· 10th Cir.· 1966-05-26 ·cited 14×
  An insurer can waive the proof of loss requirement, even after the deadline, through the actions of its agents, and a non-waiver agreement does not protect the insurer from such waivers if its agents go beyond mere investigation.