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

• Zack Peterson v. State
  983 So. 2d 27· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-04-23 ·cited 103×
  A criminal defendant claiming statutory immunity must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they are immunized from prosecution.
• McKNIGHT v. State
  727 So. 2d 314· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-02-17 ·cited 103×
  Sharon McKnight appeals her five-year sentence imposed under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) statute, challenging its constitutionality on separation of powers and due process grounds. The Third District Court of Appeal upholds the statute as constitutional, rejecting
• United States v. Terzado-Madruga
  897 F.2d 1099· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 103×
  The court held that while the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by recording post-indictment conversations, the proper remedy was to exclude the evidence from the trial of the indicted charges, not to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence
• Cormier v. Williams
  148 Fla. 201· Fla.· 1941-09-26 ·cited 102×
  A Florida Supreme Court case addressing whether a declaration sufficiently alleged gross negligence under the guest statute where a car zigzagged across a road before a collision. The court also grappled with whether 'gross negligence' and 'willful and wanton misconduct' are syno
• United States v. Sklar
  920 F.2d 107· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-03 ·cited 101×
  The court held that the district court's finding of relevant conduct for GSR calculation was supported by evidence, but erred in departing downward based on defendant's cooperation without a government motion and on rehabilitation that was not extraordinary.
• Causey v. Ford Motor Co.
  516 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 101×
  The court held that Ford Motor Company unlawfully discriminated based on sex in its initial hiring of appellant, but not in its rehiring decisions, restroom facilities, or condonation of hazing. The union did not breach its duty of fair representation.
• Agrico Chem. Co. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Env't Reg. & Sarasota Cnty.
  365 So. 2d 759· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-12-01 ·cited 100×
  Phosphate mining companies challenged proposed effluent standards rules issued by Florida's Department of Environmental Regulation. The court held that the Commission's approval of the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act by occurring before a hearing officer ruled on t
• Denehy v. State
  400 So. 2d 1216· Fla.· 1980-10-16 ·cited 99×
  Appellants Denehy and Pitoscia were convicted of possession of cannabis with intent to sell after a search at an agricultural inspection station. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the agricultural inspection statute and affirmed their convictions, finding
• Gertrude McLAIN v. Pensacola Coach Corp.
  152 Fla. 876· Fla.· 1943-05-04 ·cited 98×
  This case involves a claim for damages from an assault and battery. The trial court withdrew the count seeking punitive damages, and the jury found for the defendant on the remaining count for actual damages. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the jury's verdict for the d
• United States v. McDOWELL
  888 F.2d 285· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disclosing grand jury testimony and that its finding of subornation of perjury was not clearly erroneous, affirming the sentence imposed.
• United States v. Darby
  744 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 96×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
• Schapansky v. Dep't OF Transp.
  735 F.2d 477· Fed. Cir.· 1984-05-18 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board correctly sustained the removal of an air traffic controller for participating in an illegal strike against the government, finding the charges proven, the penalty appropriate, and the procedures followed lawful.
• United States v. Guerra
  888 F.2d 247· 2d Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 94×
  The preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies due process for determining "relevant conduct" under the Sentencing Guidelines, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Ramesh Solomon v. Elsea
  676 F.2d 282· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's denial of parole was proper, as the statement of reasons was sufficient, the magnitude of the offense constituted good cause for deviation from guidelines, and the Commission did not abuse its discretion by relying on presentence report
• United States v. DiGILIO
  538 F.2d 972· 3d Cir.· 1976-06-07 ·cited 93×
  The court's panel opinion erred in rejecting the aggregation of values for multiple takings of FBI files, as the jury could have found a single criminal plan.
• Love v. State
  247 So. 3d 609· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-05-11 ·cited 92×
  Although the 2017 amendment to section 776.032(4) is constitutional, it does not apply retroactively to crimes committed before its June 9, 2017 effective date because it imposes a new legal burden on the State and constitutes a substantive change in criminal law prohibited by Ar
• United States v. Rivera-Santiago
  872 F.2d 1073· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy to possess and distribute marihuana, and affirmed the convictions. The court also found that the trial court's refusal to give a specific cautionary instruction was not reversible error.
• United States v. Blanco
  888 F.2d 907· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-07 ·cited 90×
  A sentencing court may consider drug quantities not covered by counts of conviction if they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction, and a defendant's entitlement to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not automati
• Bruce v. Estelle
  536 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the district court's determination that the petitioner was legally competent to stand trial was clearly erroneous, reversing the denial of the writ of habeas corpus.
• Norvil v. State
  191 So. 3d 406· Fla.· 2016-04-28 ·cited 89×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts violate a defendant's due process rights by considering subsequent arrests without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense. The Court adopted a bright-line rule prohibiting consideration of such subsequent arrests, the
• Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co. & Alamo Explosives Co., Inc.
  750 F.2d 1569· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the patent claims for an emulsion blasting agent were not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement, and were not procured by inequitable conduct, and that the defendant's products infringed the patent.
• United States v. White
  611 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 89×
  The court held that sufficient evidence existed to establish territorial jurisdiction and venue, the admission of a Treasury claim form was proper under the residual hearsay exception, and the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to defraud.
• Jhirad v. Ferrandina
  536 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 89×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the magistrate's finding of 'constructive flight' was supported by evidence and within the scope of the remand, and that the standard of proof for tolling the statute of limitations in extradition proceedings is
• Bloomfield v. Mayo
  119 So. 2d 417· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-04-12 ·cited 89×
  Bloomfield challenged the denial of pesticide registration by Florida's Commissioner of Agriculture. The court held that the Commissioner's denial was an administrative order, not quasi-judicial, and therefore not reviewable by certiorari alone; the declaratory relief action was
• Byers v. Gunn
  81 So. 2d 723· Fla.· 1955-07-08 ·cited 88×
  A minor injured when she fell from the hood of a car driven by a teenage girl is awarded damages against the car's owner/father. The court affirms, holding that once a driver discovers a trespasser in peril on her vehicle, she owes a duty of reasonable care to avoid injuring that
• del Valle v. State
  80 So. 3d 999· Fla.· 2011-12-15 ·cited 86×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts of appeal regarding the procedures and burden of proof required before a probationer's probation can be revoked for failure to pay restitution or costs. The court held that trial courts must inquire into the prob
• United States v. Jannotti
  729 F.2d 213· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 86×
  The court held that while the appellants' conduct was sufficient to convict them of Hobbs Act conspiracy, the evidence did not prove Schwartz conspired to conduct the affairs of the law firm as required for a RICO conviction.
• United States v. Inmon
  568 F.2d 326· 3d Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 86×
  Denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is an appealable final decision, and the government bears the burden of proving separate offenses by a preponderance of the evidence once the defendant makes a non-frivolous showing.
• T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co.
  760 F.2d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 85×
  The majority holds that an insurer can be liable for punitive damages under the circumstances presented, a position the dissent strongly refutes.
• Hackley v. Roudebush
  520 F.2d 108· D.C. Cir.· 1975-09-29 ·cited 85×
• Dudley v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  778 F.3d 909· 11th Cir.· 2014-12-29 ·cited 84×
  Eli Lilly appealed a district court order remanding a class action employment dispute to state court, arguing the court erred in finding that Lilly failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million under the Class Action Fai
• United States v. Loretta Walton (89-1862)
  908 F.2d 1289· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 84×
  The court held that a witness's passing, unprompted reference to a polygraph examination, followed by a curative instruction, was harmless error. It also held that the defendants did not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecution's use of peremptory
• United States v. Gooden
  892 F.2d 725· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 84×
  The majority opinion incorrectly found that the district court determined the additional cocaine sales were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction.
• Wilson v. State
  304 So. 2d 119· Fla.· 1974-11-27 ·cited 84×
  The court held that a specific finding of voluntariness is not required when no coercion is suggested and the evidence clearly supports the confession's voluntary nature. The court also held that the number of peremptory challenges is a procedural matter and the appellant failed
• United States v. LaVance Greene
  489 F.2d 1145· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-04 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the intermediate appellate court should apply existing Supreme Court precedent regarding the burden of proof for sanity, leaving reconsideration to the Supreme Court.
• United States v. Reid
  911 F.2d 1456· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-20 ·cited 82×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the grand jury was adequately informed, the witness's testimony did not violate due process, and the Sentencing Guidelines were not misapplied.
• Spencer v. Zant
  715 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 82×
• Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.
  717 F.2d 1380· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 82×
  The court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on the punitive portion of damages, but affirmed the district court's findings on patent validity, infringement, willful infringement, and the amount of damages.
• Pandula v. Pinkey Fonseca
  145 Fla. 395· Fla.· 1940-12-20 ·cited 81×
  The appellate court affirmed a lower court's judgment awarding damages for assault and battery. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on cross-examination, the admissibility of evidence regarding the plaintiff's character, or jury instructions on damage
• United States v. Castellanos
  904 F.2d 1490· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-13 ·cited 80×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence, holding that Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.3 permissibly considers relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction and that the district court did not err in refusing a downward departure for substantial assistance.
• United States v. Burke
  888 F.2d 862· D.C. Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the two-level sentencing enhancement for firearm possession under Guidelines § 2D1.1(b) requires a showing of scienter, meaning the defendant must have possessed the firearm intentionally, recklessly, or by criminal negligence.
• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp.
  908 So. 2d 360· Fla.· 2005-07-07 ·cited 79×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between two provisions of section 255.05 governing payment bonds for public construction projects. The Court held that notice and time limitations may be enforceable even when a bond fails to reference them, but only if the surety is
• United States v. Dario Restrepo
  946 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-04 ·cited 79×
  The severity of penal consequences and the quantitative effect of a sentencing factor are relevant in determining the need for heightened procedural protections.
• Bibbs v. Block
  778 F.2d 1318· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff would not have been promoted absent discrimination.
• King v. Weis-Patterson Lumber Co.
  124 Fla. 272· Fla.· 1936-05-14 ·cited 79×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for a sawmill company in a negligence action brought by an insane person's guardian, holding that sufficient circumstantial evidence of the defendant's negligence in accumulating inflammable trash that caused a fire spreading
• Ferris v. Turlington
  510 So. 2d 292· Fla.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 78×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between two district courts regarding the standard of proof required to revoke a professional teaching license. The Court held that clear and convincing evidence is the appropriate standard for license revocation proceedings, affirmed
• Gould v. State
  99 Fla. 662· Fla.· 1930-03-26 ·cited 78×
  Bernard Gould, an attorney admitted to practice in Florida in 1926, was disbarred by the Circuit Court for Dade County based on charges of dishonesty and lack of diligence in client matters. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the disbarment order, holding that the charges and evi
• United States v. Makris
  535 F.2d 899· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-23 ·cited 77×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendant was competent to stand trial, holding that a nunc pro tunc competency hearing was permissible and that the preponderance of the evidence standard was appropriate for determining competency.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Gonzalez
  899 F.2d 177· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 76×
  The court held that enhancing a defendant's sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines based on conduct for which he was acquitted does not violate the Double Jeopardy or Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment.
• United States v. LEE
  818 F.2d 1052· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 76×