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. Gad Gilan
  967 F.2d 776· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that evidence of an uncharged theft was improperly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because there was insufficient evidence linking the defendant to that prior act.
• United States v. Charles V. Ushery (91-5716) & Benjamin R. Burton (91-5715)
  968 F.2d 575· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motions to suppress, the convictions, and the sentence, finding that the encounters were consensual or supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause, and that the evidence and sentencing were proper.
• United States v. Augustin Reyes Gavilan
  966 F.2d 530· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a downward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) because he did not possess the firearm solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, as it was also possessed to protect his marijuana crop.
• United States v. Montoya
  967 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation and Fifth Amendment due process claims by failing to raise them in the district court, and the sentencing court did not commit plain error by relying on reliable hearsay.
• United States v. Pollard
  965 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that marijuana grown by a co-defendant could be properly included as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes when it was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the defendant's offense of conviction.
• United States v. Blyden
  964 F.2d 1375· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 2×
  Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) do not bar the admission of evidence of criminal conduct for which a defendant was previously acquitted if that evidence is essential to proving an element of a pending charge.
• United States v. Perkins
  963 F.2d 1523· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide specific reasons for its downward departure based on diminished capacity and by failing to make a specific finding on the foreseeability of the co-defendant's drugs.
• United States v. Morton
  957 F.2d 577· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 'offense of conviction' for sentencing purposes is the substantive offense to which a defendant pleads guilty, and that the district court must determine if dismissed conspiracy conduct constitutes 'relevant conduct' under the Sentencing Guidelines before
• United States v. Wilson
  954 F.2d 374· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court is constrained by circuit precedent to affirm the district court's decision to increase the defendant's sentence based on unconvicted conduct.
• United States ex rel. John Farese # 12136-054 v. Luther
  953 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The Parole Commission erred in basing the petitioner's offense severity rating on the total amount of drugs distributed by co-conspirators when there was no evidence that the petitioner controlled or could have foreseen their actions, violating its own regulations.
• Mairin Doyle v. Arlington Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  953 F.2d 100· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court must give due weight to administrative findings in IDEA cases and explain any deviations, and that the prior service of a judge on a school board does not automatically require recusal if the dispute arose after their service.
• United States v. Bilyk
  949 F.2d 259· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in continuing the defendant's commitment because the evidence supported a finding that he posed a danger to society due to a mental defect, even with conflicting expert testimony.
• United States v. Miller
  943 F.2d 858· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-03 ·cited 2×·via Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement based on the defendant's actions, as the findings were not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Bloom
  945 F.2d 14· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 2×
  A district court may sentence a defendant under pre-Guidelines law if the defendant did not admit to, and the government presented no evidence of, post-Guidelines conduct, even if the indictment encompassed a period extending beyond the Guidelines' effective date.
• United States v. ONE Parcel OF Real Prop. With Bldgs.
  942 F.2d 74· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the wife was properly permitted to intervene and assert a claim to the property, and that she sufficiently proved both an ownership interest and ignorance of her husband's drug activity.
• United States v. Marshall
  940 F.2d 382· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's enhancement for possession of firearms but remanded for further findings regarding the classification of a small quantity of drugs as cocaine base.
• Bd. OF Educ. OF Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. NO. 21 v. Ill. State Bd. OF Educ.
  938 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parents' obstructionist conduct was not a valid reason to override the school district's educational plan for their son.
• In re Rose v. Rose
  934 F.2d 901· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the debt incurred by the debtor through larceny was nondischargeable in bankruptcy.
• United States v. Kyung Hwan MUN
  928 F.2d 323· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prior state conviction does not bar federal sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(2) and that the evidence supported the district court's finding of attempted murder for sentencing purposes.
• Massing v. The Sec'y OF THE Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  926 F.2d 1133· Fed. Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prior settlement for a vaccine-related death, even if not with a manufacturer or administrator, precludes recovery under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program if the settlement was for damages for that death.
• Landrum v. T.C. Goddard
  921 F.2d 61· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that fraudulent odometer tampering must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Shaker G. Nassif
  921 F.2d 168· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 2×
• Delbert E. Epperley v. State
  568 So. 2d 1336· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-10-31 ·cited 2×
  Delbert Epperley appealed his restitution sentence imposed as a condition of probation for attempted sexual battery and indecent assault against three minor girls. The court reversed the $10,000 restitution amount per victim, holding that the trial court failed to comply with sta
• United States v. Maez
  915 F.2d 1466· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for the return of seized money, finding the bank was entitled to it.
• Therman Nelson v. State
  567 So. 2d 548· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-10-04 ·cited 2×
  Therman Nelson appeals his departure sentence of 40 years for robbery and burglary (exceeding the 12-year guideline maximum) after conviction for crimes against elderly victims. The appellate court affirmed the departure sentence, holding that the vulnerability of the aged victim
• Alton T. Webster v. Dep't OF the Army
  911 F.2d 679· Fed. Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the administrative judge erred in analyzing the reprisal defense and in considering the penalty without properly weighing mitigating factors like supervisor animus.
• Faries v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  909 F.2d 170· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated because the legal standard for invoking the interim presumption under the Black Lung Benefits Act remained consistent with the Mullins decision at the time of his initial hearing, and he had the opportunity
• Midwest Plastic Fabricators, Inc. v. Underwriters Labs. Inc.
  906 F.2d 1568· Fed. Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 2×·via Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence
  The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's denial of cancellation, holding that UL did not misuse its certification marks and adequately controlled their use, as required by statute.
• Rigol v. State
  561 So. 2d 1308· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because the co-defendant's consent to search was knowing, voluntary, and valid.
• United States v. 1 Parcel OF Real Prop.
  904 F.2d 487· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 2×
  A claimant's detailed affidavit, even if self-serving, can create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment in a civil forfeiture action.
• State v. Chapman
  562 So. 2d 355· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-04 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Alexander
  901 F.2d 272· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in ordering counsel to turn over checks and coins pursuant to a plea agreement, nor in admitting grand jury testimony.
• In re J.P. Fyfe v. Bradco Supply Corp.
  891 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 2×
  A payment made under a new workout arrangement, which included the use of preliminary lien notices and a departure from open account terms due to the debtor's financial distress, does not qualify as a payment made in the ordinary course of business under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) and
• Tino Fiumara v. O'Brien
  889 F.2d 254· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in using unconvicted murders to increase the appellant's offense severity rating, as there was sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the murders and his racketeering and extortion offenses.
• In the Interest of F.J.O. v. State
  548 So. 2d 306· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-09-08 ·cited 2×
  A juvenile who pleaded nolo contendere to sexual battery appeals a restitution order. The appellate court vacates the order, finding the state failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that venereal warts contracted by the victim resulted from the defendant's conduct.
• Johnson v. Bednar
  552 So. 2d 928· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-08-23 ·cited 2×
  Sellers of a business violated a covenant not to compete, were enjoined, and then violated the injunction. The trial court held them in contempt and imposed a $25,000 fine. The sellers appealed, challenging the evidentiary standard, the fine amount, and the lack of a purging prov
• Brown v. DOW Chem. Co. & Shell Chem. Co.
  875 F.2d 197· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the defendants, affirming that the suit was barred by both collateral estoppel and the statute of limitations.
• Smart v. Leeke
  873 F.2d 1558· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the burden of persuasion for self-defense, as defined by South Carolina law, cannot constitutionally be placed on the defendant because it negates an element of the crime rather than being an affirmative defense.
• Williams v. City OF Edgewood
  541 So. 2d 122· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-03-16 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Dong Chan KIM
  870 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3666 is not a sentencing provision and applies even after an acquittal, allowing the court to order the transfer of bribe money to the Treasury.
• Benoit Balthazar v. State
  533 So. 2d 955· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-11-23 ·cited 2×
• Warner v. United States
  700 F. Supp. 532· S.D. Fla.· 1988-11-04 ·cited 2×
  The Defendant must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence, but the admissibility of evidence is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
• Smart v. Leeke
  856 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction placing the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant in a South Carolina murder trial violated due process because self-defense is an element of murder in South Carolina, which the prosecution must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Finley Hudson v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  851 F.2d 215· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 2×
• LaFLOWER v. United States
  849 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government met its burden of proving the soldier was absent without leave (AWOL) by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Army's procedural noncompliance did not negate this status or warrant estoppel.
• In re Forfeiture OF ONE 1982 Oldsmobile VIN # 1G3AW69YSCM16759
  527 So. 2d 838· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-05-18 ·cited 2×
  In a vehicle forfeiture proceeding, the trial court gave confusing jury instructions regarding burden of proof that conflated the preponderance of evidence standard with the higher clear and convincing evidence standard. The appellate court reversed, finding the instructions harm
• Creech v. Benefits Review Bd.
  841 F.2d 706· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Benefits Review Board's decision affirming the denial of black lung benefits was supported by substantial evidence.
• John H.M. Chen v. Gen. Acct. Off.
  821 F.2d 732· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The PAB applied the wrong standard of review when it reconsidered the Presiding Member's decision, necessitating a remand for further consideration under the correct standard.
• Bertrand G. Berube v. Gen. Servs. Admin.
  820 F.2d 396· Fed. Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an agency may remove an SES employee under 5 U.S.C. § 7543 for conduct related to job performance if it rises to the level of misconduct, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. However, the Board must apply the correct legal standard to determine if the agency prove
• Grover E. Rabon, Jr. v. Great Sw. Fire Ins. Co.
  818 F.2d 306· 4th Cir.· 1987-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting evidence related to a criminal arson case, as the objecting party had "opened the door" to the topic and failed to properly object to jury instructions.