Preponderance Of The Evidence

3,086 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 56 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Marino v. Roberto Ballestas, M.D.
  749 F.2d 162· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 10×
  The majority improperly granted a new trial by disregarding the jury's finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on informed consent.
• Fulton v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  744 F.2d 1026· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that although jury instructions on alibi defenses were constitutionally infirm by shifting the burden of proof, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases, and did not render the trials fundamentally unfair.
• Devine v. Brisco
  733 F.2d 867· Fed. Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 10×
  An arbitrator cannot refuse to apply the harmful error rule, a provision of federal law, simply because it is not explicitly incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement.
• United States v. DeROCHE
  726 F.2d 1025· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to adhere to the procedures established in U.S. v. James for admitting co-conspirator hearsay testimony, requiring reversal and remand.
• Ayub K. Ommaya v. Nat'l Insts. OF Health
  726 F.2d 827· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) erred by applying the incorrect 'substantial evidence' standard instead of the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard when reviewing the denial of a within-grade salary increase, and that the harmless error doctrine
• White v. United States Dep't OF THE Army
  720 F.2d 209· D.C. Cir.· 1983-11-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a periodic within-grade step increase in pay, based on unacceptable performance, should be reviewed under the preponderance of the evidence standard, not the substantial evidence standard, as dictated by the plain language of 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1
• Boich v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  719 F.2d 194· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the ALJ's and Commission's reliance on the Pasula test was consistent with the Coal Act, as dictated by the Supreme Court's decision in Transportation Management.
• Dunning v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin.
  718 F.2d 1170· D.C. Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision, finding that the Board's regulations allowed for review and that the suspension was supported by substantial evidence.
• Lane Crane Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  704 F.2d 550· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury verdict finding the union liable for an illegal secondary boycott, and that ordinary agency principles, not a heightened 'clear proof' standard, applied to union responsibility.
• Rudy's Glass Constr. Co. v. A.D. Robins
  427 So. 2d 1051· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-03-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury verdict for the plaintiff was sustainable under a tort theory of fraudulent misrepresentation, and that the defendant's other arguments on appeal lacked merit.
• Otto v. Block
  693 F.2d 472· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the magistrate erred in reducing the Food and Nutrition Service's one-year disqualification of Mike's Food Store from the Food Stamp Program, as the violations were serious and reflected store policy.
• Andrade v. City OF Phoenix & Lawrence Wetzel
  692 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court, not the agencies, must determine if disciplinary action would have been taken absent the impermissible ground, and that the Mt. Healthy standard is inappropriate if no constitutional right is implicated.
• Drew v. U. S. Dep't OF THE Navy & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
  672 F.2d 197· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the employee received adequate notice of the charges under Chapter 75 and that a dismissal for performance-related grounds is permissible under Chapter 75, even if initially pursued under Chapter 43.
• Darby v. Internal Revenue Serv. & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
  672 F.2d 192· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Eisenhower Young
  634 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly admitted co-conspirator statements, that convictions for conspiracy and substantive offenses do not violate double jeopardy, and that the prosecutor's remarks were not prejudicial.
• Eichhorn v. State
  386 So. 2d 604· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-08-06 ·cited 10×
  James Eichhorn was convicted of cannabis possession and sentenced as a habitual felony offender. The appellate court reversed the enhanced sentence because the trial judge failed to state on the record the specific reasons for invoking the enhanced penalty statute, violating stat
• Renaldo Jones v. State
  387 So. 2d 401· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-07-30 ·cited 10×
  Renaldo Jones was convicted by jury of grand theft, second degree, and sentenced as an habitual offender. He appealed arguing insufficient evidence and inadequate trial court findings to support the enhanced sentence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's f
• United States v. Passodelis
  615 F.2d 975· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the record contained sufficient evidence, viewed most favorably to the government, to support a finding that venue was properly established in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
• United States v. Jordan
  626 F.2d 928· D.C. Cir.· 1980-02-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike the $110,000 allegation as surplusage, and that the defendant failed to show prejudice regarding potential parole implications.
• In the Interest of C. K. G.
  365 So. 2d 424· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-12-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard instead of the clear and convincing evidence standard in an adoption case.
• United States v. MacKedon
  562 F.2d 103· 1st Cir.· 1977-09-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if improperly instructed to the jury, did not affect the appellant's substantial rights given the overwhelming independent evidence.
• Buzynski v. Oliver
  538 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1976-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it could not predict with near certainty that the Supreme Court would overrule Leland v. Oregon, which permits states to require defendants to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Shepard
  538 F.2d 107· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentence were valid, rejecting claims regarding competency, sanity, and jury instructions.
• Napoleon Howard v. State
  280 So. 2d 705· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-07-31 ·cited 10×
  Howard appealed the denial of post-conviction relief for his 1958 armed robbery conviction, arguing it was obtained without counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court vacated the denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Howar
• REX Chainbelt Inc. v. Borg-Warner Corp.
  477 F.2d 481· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in reversing the Board of Patent Interferences' award of priority because it applied the wrong standard of review and failed to give sufficient weight to the Board's findings regarding conception.
• Campbell v. Wettstein
  476 F.2d 642· C.C.P.A.· 1973-04-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that biological evaluation tests performed on test animals were sufficient to establish an actual reduction to practice of the invention, reversing the Board of Patent Interferences' decision.
• McDONNELL v. Am. Leduc Petroleums, Ltd.
  456 F.2d 1170· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that cases against certain defendants must be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the standard of proof and the trustee's amended theories of liability. It also addressed issues of trustee standing and witness immunity.
• Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Monsanto Chem. Co.
  383 F.2d 973· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that proving the identity and utility of the reaction product is essential for establishing reduction to practice of a chemical process patent, and that the lower court correctly applied the appropriate standards of proof.
• Barrineau v. B & F Auto Parts, Inc.
  191 So. 2d 53· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-10-04 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree, finding the chancellor did not abuse discretion in determining the evidence did not sufficiently establish the terms of the alleged oral agreement.
• Hurwitz v. Poon
  364 F.2d 878· C.C.P.A.· 1966-08-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Board of Interferences correctly awarded priority to the junior party Poon, finding sufficient evidence of actual reduction to practice and proper interpretation of the interference count.
• ONE 1961 Lincoln Cont'l Sedan v. United States
  360 F.2d 467· 8th Cir.· 1966-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the forfeiture of the automobile and currency, as they were intended for and used in claimant's unlawful gambling operations.
• Am. Comm. for Prot. of Foreign Born v. Subversive Activities Control Bd.
  331 F.2d 53· D.C. Cir.· 1963-12-17 ·cited 10×
  The court should have set aside the Board's order because the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born was primarily operated for the purpose of aiding the Communist Party's objectives.
• GEE Chee ON v. Brownell
  253 F.2d 814· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action, finding sufficient unimpeached evidence to establish the appellant's citizenship despite credibility issues with his initial testimony.
• Straughter v. Straughter
  87 So. 2d 499· Fla.· 1956-05-18 ·cited 10×
  Frank Straughter appealed a trial court's denial of his divorce complaint against his wife Irene Roberts Straughter. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Straughter failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the statutory grounds for divorce—extreme
• Pines v. McAllister
  188 F.2d 388· C.C.P.A.· 1951-04-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that isomerization occurred, and therefore priority of invention was correctly awarded to the senior party.
• Balogh v. Crot
  176 F.2d 923· C.C.P.A.· 1949-06-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant failed to prove an actual reduction to practice and did not exercise due diligence in pursuing his invention, thus not entitling him to priority over the appellee.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warrick
  172 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1949-02-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the deceased employee sustained an accidental injury in the course of his employment, which resulted in his death.
• Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. of Minn. v. Jacob Hieb, Inc.
  146 F.2d 447· 8th Cir.· 1945-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurer was estopped from asserting the "unconditional and sole ownership" clause due to its agent's knowledge of the insured's title status, and that the South Dakota statute allowing attorney fees for successful policyholders was constitutional.
• Shumaker v. Paulson
  136 F.2d 686· C.C.P.A.· 1943-06-01 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the Patent Office's award of priority of invention to Hyland, finding that Shumaker failed to establish prior conception and that Hyland exercised diligence in reducing the invention to practice.
• Simms v. Hodges
  34 Fla. 498· Fla.· 1894-06-01 ·cited 10×
  Robert Simms sued P.C. Hodges by attachment, alleging fraudulent disposition of property and removal beyond Florida to avoid debts. A jury found in favor of Hodges and the attachment was dissolved. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that conflicting evidence on the credi
• Armstrong v. State
  27 Fla. 366· Fla.· 1891-01-01 ·cited 10×
  This case addresses the burden of proof for insanity defenses in Florida criminal trials. The court held that a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the jury has a reasonable doubt about their sanity, even if the insanity is not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Varner v. Dometic Corp.
  2007 WL 4592267· S.D. Fla.· 2022-04-26 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's order excluding expert testimony, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
• United States v. Moore
  22 F.4th 1258· 11th Cir.· 2022-01-13 ·cited 9×
  Anthony Moore appealed his sentences for violating supervised release three times and for criminal contempt, arguing that the district court imposed sentences violating the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by exceeding statutory limits and without proper procedures. The Eleventh Circui
• Fuller v. State
  257 So. 3d 521· Fla. 5th DCA· 2018-09-28 ·cited 9×
  Bruce Fuller was convicted of manslaughter with a firearm after admittedly shooting Furrukh Alam in self-defense. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that Fuller was entitled to a new trial due to the cumulative and
• Hernandez v. State
  254 So. 3d 1091· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-08-29 ·cited 9×
  Landon Hernandez appealed the trial court's order revoking his probation. The court affirmed the revocation but remanded the case with instructions to correct the written revocation order to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements made at the probation revocation hearing
• Fla. Dept. of Child. & Families v. A.R. and R.L.
  253 So. 3d 1158· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-08-03 ·cited 9×
  The trial court misapplied the statutory definition of sexual abuse by requiring proof that touching was intentional "in a sexual way" and occurred under clothing, when Florida law defines sexual abuse as intentional touching of the genitals, genital area, groin, or clothing cove
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Case-Report NO. 2015-05
  195 So. 3d 1088· Fla.· 2016-04-07 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to seventeen existing standard criminal jury instructions and adopted two new instructions relating to sexual offender and sexual predator registration requirements. The Court rejected constitutional challenges raised by the Florida A
• Leyritz v. State
  93 So. 3d 1156· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-08-01 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's cost assessment against a defendant who was acquitted of manslaughter charges but convicted of the lesser-included misdemeanor of driving under the influence. The court held that the trial court must specifica
• Katherine's BAY, LLC v. Fagan
  52 So. 3d 19· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-12-14 ·cited 9×
  Katherine's Bay, LLC appeals an administrative decision invalidating a small-scale development amendment to Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan that would have changed the zoning of its property from Low Intensity Coastal and Lakes to Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground. The cour
• BOX v. State
  993 So. 2d 135· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-10-24 ·cited 9×
  Jerry Box appeals a restitution order imposed as part of his battery conviction sentence, arguing that hearsay evidence used at the restitution hearing violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court holds that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to restitution