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

• United States v. Rodrigo Sostre
  967 F.2d 728· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying a three-level upward adjustment for the defendant's supervisory role, but did not err in applying a two-level increase for weapon possession or denying a two-level decrease for minor participation.
• Hebert v. State
  600 So. 2d 1293· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The First District Court of Appeal affirmed restitution orders of $2,530 imposed on appellants who pleaded guilty to petit theft (property value under $300) after originally being charged with grand theft. The court held that absent specific restrictions in the plea agreement, re
• United States v. Sanchez
  967 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying the preponderance of the evidence standard to include prior drug transactions as relevant conduct for sentencing, as the enhancement was not so extreme as to violate due process.
• United States v. Jessup
  966 F.2d 1354· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 6×
  A district court may consider information obtained in violation of state law when determining sentencing, particularly when the information is relevant to acceptance of responsibility and was not obtained with the intent to increase the defendant's sentence.
• United States v. Montez
  952 F.2d 854· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The exclusionary rule does not apply to supervised release revocation hearings absent a showing of harassment, and the district court did not err in admitting the seized cocaine or in its findings regarding knowing possession and sentencing.
• Fletcher v. Metro Dade Police Dep't LAW Enf't Tr. Fund
  593 So. 2d 266· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-14 ·cited 6×
  Property seized in a forfeiture action may only be forfeited if clear and convincing evidence shows it was intended to be used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise. The $25,000 belonging to Mills did not meet this standard and must be reversed, while the $55,000 belonging to F
• Melton v. Moore
  964 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Jim Beam requires retroactive application of the Grogan rule, which established the preponderance of the evidence standard for dischargeability exceptions.
• Grant v. State
  586 So. 2d 438· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-09-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while most reasons for a departure sentence were invalid, one reason—racial prejudice—was valid and supported by the record, thus affirming the sentence.
• United States v. Carper
  942 F.2d 1298· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's failure to timely disclose defendant's statements was not reversible error without prejudice, and that while some co-conspirator statements were improperly admitted, the errors were harmless. The court reversed one defendant's conspiracy convi
• United States v. Tamez
  941 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) applies to knowingly making a building available for drug distribution, not just 'crack houses,' and that co-conspirator statements were properly admitted. However, the court reversed the sentencing enhancement for being an organizer.
• United States v. Marino
  936 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-18 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of both defendants, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and no clear error in sentencing enhancements or factual findings.
• United States v. Dominguez-Mestas
  929 F.2d 1379· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant bears the burden of proving the affirmative defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 545, as duress does not negate the knowledge element of the offense.
• United States v. Barrera
  922 F.2d 664· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an upward adjustment in the base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.3(b)(1) is appropriate if the defendant knew or believed the funds were criminally derived property, even if that belief is not actual knowledge.
• Ehrsam v. Rubenstein
  917 F.2d 764· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act do not violate the Due Process Clause.
• In the Matter of: Brian Carl Foreman v. Foreman
  906 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding the debt dischargeable, reversing the district court's decision.
• Clift C. Lane v. Sullivan
  900 F.2d 1247· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that specific findings from a prior case, even with a higher burden of proof, can have preclusive effect in a subsequent case with a lower burden of proof if those findings were definitive.
• Meyer v. Zeigler Coal Co.
  894 F.2d 902· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the administrative law judge's findings regarding the miner's height and the employer's rebuttal of the disability presumption were supported by substantial evidence, and thus affirmed the denial of benefits.
• United States v. Diaz
  891 F.2d 1057· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a jury instruction allowing the inference of participation in the theft of checks from mere possession of recently stolen checks was unduly prejudicial and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• Langston v. ACT
  890 F.2d 380· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the American College Testing Program (ACT) did not engage in state action, did not breach its contract by cancelling a score in good faith, and was protected by qualified privilege for communications regarding the investigation, thus affirming summary judgment
• Hortensia De Allende v. Baker
  891 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's position in denying the visa was substantially justified, and therefore the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• In the Interest of C.C. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  556 So. 2d 416· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the trial court's finding of dependency based on abuse.
• Hensley v. United States
  728 F. Supp. 716· S.D. Fla.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any negligence on the part of the United States or its employees, and therefore, the claims were dismissed.
• Vannucci v. Vannucci
  546 So. 2d 800· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-07-31 ·cited 6×
  Christina Vannucci appealed a trial court order conditioning but allowing her ex-husband Randy's one-month visitation with their three-year-old daughter despite allegations of sexual abuse. The appellate court quashed the order and remanded, holding that the trial judge must make
• John F. Robinson For the Francis E. Heydt Co. v. Cheney
  876 F.2d 152· D.C. Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the DLA's debarment of FHC was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and the regulation was not unconstitutionally vague.
• United States Secret Serv. Special Agent John Mrha v. Cir. Court
  537 So. 2d 182· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-01-18 ·cited 6×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's criminal contempt conviction of a Secret Service agent who testified about counterfeit credit cards despite a colloquial instruction not to mention them. The court held that the contempt finding lacked the requisite beyond-a-reas
• United States v. Burke
  856 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of motions to dismiss the indictment, finding no merit to claims of speedy trial violations, improper use of immunized testimony, or governmental misconduct.
• James v. Otis Elevator Co.
  854 F.2d 429· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence that the defendant negligently maintained the elevator, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. The Boeing Co.
  843 F.2d 1213· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Boeing's age-60 policy constituted a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) under the ADEA, and that the FAA's Age-60 Rule was not conc
• United States v. Eder
  836 F.2d 1145· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction and proper venue, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial.
• Maxwell Andrews v. Division OF Retirement
  508 So. 2d 477· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the State Retirement Commission's denial of line-of-duty disability retirement benefits was supported by competent, substantial evidence, as the appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his respiratory impairment was work-related and a
• P.M. Bergh v. Dep't OF Transp.
  794 F.2d 1575· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Federal Aviation Administration did not improperly reinstate some striking air traffic controllers while not reinstating others, nor did it violate equal protection or abuse its discretion in removing the petitioners.
• United States v. One (1) 1983
  640 F. Supp. 667· S.D. Fla.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government demonstrated probable cause for forfeiture of the vessel, and the claimant failed to prove any defense.
• Vignes v. Dep't of Transp.
  791 F.2d 142· Fed. Cir.· 1986-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision to remove the appellant, finding the appeal frivolous and counsel's conduct an abuse of the judicial process.
• Gertrude Gross v. City OF Wilton Manors
  487 So. 2d 303· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The registered owner of a vehicle used in a robbery appealed its forfeiture by claiming she did not know or should not have known the vehicle would be used for criminal activity. The court affirmed the forfeiture, finding substantial evidence that the owner knew of her son's drug
• Royster v. Fauver
  775 F.2d 527· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The application of the New Jersey Parole Act of 1979 to a prisoner who committed an offense in 1968 does not violate the ex post facto clause because the standards for parole eligibility are substantially similar to those in effect at the time of the offense, and the regulations
• Rice v. State
  451 So. 2d 548· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-06-20 ·cited 6×
  William Edward Rice's conviction was reversed because the trial court failed to make an unmistakably clear finding that his confession was voluntary before the motion to suppress was denied. The appellate court held that trial judges must explicitly determine voluntariness by a p
• United States v. Thornley
  733 F.2d 970· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the defendant was a dangerous special offender and affirmed the imposed sentence.
• Burton A. Disner v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  726 F.2d 1106· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Michigan law requires fraud claims to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, not a mere preponderance, and the jury instruction to that effect was prejudicial error.
• F.U.S.A. v. Hillsborough Cmty. Coll. & the Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n
  440 So. 2d 593· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the Public Employees Relations Commission's rejection of a hearing officer's recommended order in an unfair labor practice case, holding that PERC improperly substituted its own factual findings for the hearing officer's credibi
• Stankis v. Env't Prot. Agency
  713 F.2d 1181· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) must apply the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, not the "substantial evidence" standard, when reviewing denials of within-grade salary increases based on unacceptable performance.
• Catherine M.M. Felton v. Trs. OF the Cal. State Univs. & Colleges
  708 F.2d 1507· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court should affirm the lower court's decision and not remand for further proceedings.
• Lima v. United States
  708 F.2d 502· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in striking expert testimony based on unreliable data, in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff for causation, or in its findings of fact. The court affirmed the dismissal of the action.
• Francine Mandel v. Max-France, Inc.
  704 F.2d 1205· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction on the burden of proof requires reversal unless the appellee can affirmatively demonstrate no prejudice occurred.
• Batka v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  704 F.2d 684· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the insurer only needed to prove its fraud defense by a preponderance of the evidence, when New Jersey law requires clear and convincing evidence for rescission of an insurance policy.
• Warren v. Byrne
  699 F.2d 95· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of criminal trespass charges did not preclude relitigation of the trespass issue in a civil case, and that the jury instructions regarding the burden of proof were proper.
• Tenneco Chems., Inc. v. William T. Burnett & Co., Inc.
  691 F.2d 658· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the presumption of operability for the '658 apparatus patent was not lost by Tenneco's introduction of inconclusive evidence or by its counsel's statements, and thus the district court erred in invalidating it. However, the court affirmed the invalidity of the
• United States v. F/V Repulse
  688 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard was appropriate for a civil penalty under 16 U.S.C. § 1376(b).
• United States v. Legato
  682 F.2d 180· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that deviations from procedural guidelines for admitting co-conspirator statements were not prejudicial given the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy and the court's cautionary instructions.
• United States v. Finefrock
  668 F.2d 1168· 10th Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard when determining probable cause for a warrantless search, and that exigent circumstances are not a separate requirement for airplane searches under the automobile exception.
• United States v. Manelli
  667 F.2d 695· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-23 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction for assaulting a federal officer but remanded for further consideration of the motion for return of seized property.