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

• United States v. Richard Rodney Robison (89-3724)
  904 F.2d 365· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-01 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed Smoot's conviction but vacated the sentences of both defendants, remanding for resentencing.
• United States v. Terrazas-Carrasco
  861 F.2d 93· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-16 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for illegal re-entry was not subject to reversal based on claims of discriminatory jury selection, improper jury instructions, or errors in charging the elements of the offense.
• United States v. Towers
  775 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that evidence of real estate transactions was admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the refusal of a multiple conspiracy instruction was proper, and the designation as a Special Dan
• United States v. Fortna
  769 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a district court's finding that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure a defendant's appearance at trial is sufficient to warrant pretrial detention, even without a finding of danger to the community. The appellate court's review is
• United States v. Roscoe Emory Dean, Jr.
  666 F.2d 174· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants of conspiracy to import narcotics, but vacated two of Dean's conspiracy convictions due to insufficient evidence of separate agreements. Bigley's firearms conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. LaFATCH
  565 F.2d 81· 6th Cir.· 1977-09-02 ·cited 42×
  The District Court properly held that the state court judgment was res judicata and ordered the seized money returned to LaFatch.
• Tippett v. State OF Md.
  436 F.2d 1153· 4th Cir.· 1971-01-04 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of petitions, holding that the Maryland Defective Delinquents Act, as applied, does not violate petitioners' constitutional rights.
• Koile v. State
  902 So. 2d 822· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-01-07 ·cited 41×
  Timothy Koile appealed a restitution order totaling over $2 million imposed after he pled no contest to second degree murder. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the award of lost wages for the victim's parents attending trial but affirmed the award of the victim's lost f
• United States v. Raoul Rivalta
  892 F.2d 223· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-21 ·cited 41×
  The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for further findings and reconsideration of the sentences imposed.
• Am. Fid. & Cas. Co., Inc. v. The Greyhound Corp.
  258 F.2d 709· 5th Cir.· 1958-08-18 ·cited 41×
  The court held that evidence of reinsurance was admissible and that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the standard of proof for bad faith, and that attorneys' fees were recoverable under Florida statute.
• J.O.S. v. State
  689 So. 2d 1061· Fla.· 1997-03-13 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that restitution may be ordered in an amount greater than the maximum dollar value defining the offense for which a defendant is adjudicated guilty, provided the damage bears a significant relationship to the offense and is supported by a prepondera
• United States v. Averi
  922 F.2d 765· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 40×
  A district court may consider evidence of a defendant's conduct relating to counts on which the defendant was acquitted at trial when sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Cardona
  924 F.2d 1148· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that while some evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial remarks were questionable, they constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence, and the sentencing departure was justified.
• State v. Fuksman
  468 So. 2d 1067· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-05-14 ·cited 40×
  The State appeals the suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a briefcase found in a vehicle. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court applied the wrong standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence instead of preponderanc
• United States v. Krevsky
  741 F.2d 1090· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-24 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for mistrial due to prejudicial publicity or inadmissible testimony, nor in denying severance or refusing to sentence under the Young Adult Offenders Act. The court also found sufficient evidence for the Travel
• United States v. Weston
  708 F.2d 302· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendants were not denied effective assistance of counsel and that the evidence admitted at trial and during sentencing was proper.
• Ellis v. Brotherhood OF Railway
  685 F.2d 1065· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 40×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the trial court's decision that non-union employees are not required to contribute to certain union expenditures unrelated to collective bargaining.
• In the Interest of [C. M. H.]
  413 So. 2d 418· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-04-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a permanent commitment hearing is a dispositional hearing, and the prior adjudication of dependency based on neglect satisfies the statutory grounds for commitment, provided the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that commitment is in the child's be
• Jones v. State
  384 So. 2d 956· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-06-18 ·cited 40×
  Curtis Louis Jones was convicted of second-degree robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender under Florida's enhanced penalty statute. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and habitual offender designation but reversed an invalid search condition in the pr
• Collins Sec. Corp. & Timothy Collins v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  562 F.2d 820· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the SEC erred in using the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard for fraud allegations and that the case must be reconsidered under the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard. The court also directed the SEC to consider the applicability of the scienter r
• Thomas v. State
  581 So. 2d 992· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-06-28 ·cited 39×
  James B. Thomas appealed a restitution order of $8,500 imposed after he pled nolo contendere to burglary and grand theft. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the state failed to present sufficient competent evidence to support the restitution amount because hea
• United States v. Ross
  920 F.2d 1530· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the defendant's allegations of falsity in the search warrant affidavits were insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing and that the jury instructions were adequate. However, the court vacated one of the firearm convictions based on precedent regarding mul
• United States v. Gomez-Pabon
  911 F.2d 847· 1st Cir.· 1990-08-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana, and that improper cross-examination and delayed reading of the indictment did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Rory Allen Meeks
  857 F.2d 1201· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-23 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator testimony, denying a motion for directed verdict due to insufficient evidence, or refusing to permit a witness to testify.
• Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.
  855 F.2d 1188· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court's damage awards must be recalculated to exclude injuries not proven to a reasonable medical certainty.
• Bundy v. Dugger
  850 F.2d 1402· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 39×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding no abuse of the writ, no incompetence to stand trial, no denial of choice of counsel, no ineffective assistance of counsel, no improper Faretta inquiry, no constitutional issue regarding the race of t
• United States v. Cales
  493 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-25 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court erred by applying a reasonable doubt standard instead of a preponderance of the evidence standard when determining if evidence was derived from an illegal wiretap.
• Fla. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Mollie Jane Ward
  102 Fla. 1105· Fla.· 1931-10-06 ·cited 39×
  Florida Motor Lines, Inc. appeals a wrongful death judgment of $33,500 arising from a motor bus-automobile collision on the Dixie Highway in which the driver of a Dodge car was killed. The Florida Supreme Court reverses, finding that the Dodge driver was solely responsible for th
• Mayfield v. The Wernicke Chem. Co.
  65 Fla. 113· Fla.· 1913-02-04 ·cited 39×
  Alice and David Mayfield filed a bill in equity to remove clouds on their title to certain lands, alleging ownership through prior conveyances and that the property had been uncultivated for years. The circuit court dismissed the bill after denying the Mayfields' late motion to e
• E.S.B. v. State
  822 So. 2d 579· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-08-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to state sufficient reasons, supported by evidence and related to the child's needs, for disregarding the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation for probation.
• United States v. Ombey Mobley
  956 F.2d 450· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that applying guideline § 2K2.1(b)(2) as a strict liability enhancement, in lieu of a criminal charge requiring scienter, violates substantive due process. Additionally, the preponderance of the evidence standard for sentencing factfinding in this context implicate
• United States v. Silverio Alvarado Avila
  905 F.2d 295· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice is mandatory once the facts are found, and this precludes a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under the applicable guideline version. The court also affirmed the 'organizer or leader' enhanceme
• United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc.
  881 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting co-conspirator statements and evidence of various bid-rigging projects, nor in its jury instructions regarding a single conspiracy.
• United States v. Local 560 OF the Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  780 F.2d 267· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting newspaper articles and biased survey testimony, as insufficient foundations were laid to prove readership and representative opinion, respectively.
• United States v. Motamedi
  767 F.2d 1403· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the government must demonstrate a flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, not a mere preponderance, to justify pretrial detention.
• United States v. COE
  718 F.2d 830· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting certain out-of-court statements before proving a conspiracy by independent evidence, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the government's failure to preserve fingerprint evidence did not warrant a mistria
• United States v. Rhea Lucky Nichols and Michael Ford
  695 F.2d 86· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting coconspirator statements under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) following the procedures outlined in United States v. James, and that Ford's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment.
• Steele v. Taylor
  684 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
• Houston v. Herring
  562 F.2d 347· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that conflicting jury instructions on negligence and strict liability created confusion and warranted a new trial.
• Scott v. Plante
  532 F.2d 939· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, including those regarding involuntary medication, confinement without treatment, physical conditions, unconstitutional confinement, and procedural issues in hearings, and that the plaintiff's requ
• Elton M. Moore v. Walt Shultz
  491 F.2d 294· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as the jury's findings in favor of the patent holder were supported by sufficient evidence and the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof for invalidity and laches.
• Reuel Lawson v. State
  231 So. 2d 205· Fla.· 1970-01-28 ·cited 38×
  A Florida prisoner serving consecutive sentences challenged whether he had standing to file a motion to vacate his initial conviction based on lack of counsel. The Florida Supreme Court held that a prisoner serving consecutive sentences is "in custody" under any one of them for p
• Farrell v. Solary
  43 Fla. 124· Fla.· 1901-01-01 ·cited 38×
  In this writ of error reviewing a trial court's order granting a new trial, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's discretionary decision to set aside a jury verdict on grounds of insufficient evidence. The court established the standard that appellate courts will n
• Fleischhauer v. Feltner
  879 F.2d 1290· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to RICO predicate acts and that Krypton, not being a legal person at the time of the alleged violations, cannot be held liable under RICO. However, the court reversed the damages award, finding it was not base
• United States v. Mitchell
  725 F.2d 832· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 37×
  In federal trials, once a defendant presents sufficient evidence for a duress defense, the government must disprove at least one element of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if the defendant presents insufficient evidence to warrant a jury instruction on duress, th
• Societe de Conditionnement en Aluminium v. Hunter Eng'g Co., Inc.
  655 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a patent holder's employee's threat of patent infringement litigation against a potential customer created a reasonable apprehension of liability for a competitor, establishing a case or controversy for declaratory judgment.
• United States v. Masiello
  235 F.2d 279· 2d Cir.· 1956-07-18 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conspiracy to commit extortion, as a rational jury could infer Stickel's active participation and guilty knowledge.
• Carter v. Hunter J. Carter, Sr.
  88 So. 2d 153· Fla.· 1956-06-06 ·cited 37×
  In this insurance law case, the Florida Supreme Court held that a beneficiary who unlawfully and intentionally kills the insured forfeits all rights to the policy proceeds based on the common law principle that no person may profit from his own wrong. The court rejected arguments
• Becker v. Merrell
  155 Fla. 379· Fla.· 1944-12-19 ·cited 37×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a police chief who was involved in a car accident while in uniform and under the influence of alcohol. The court held that such conduct constituted "conduct unbecoming an officer" and that the civil service act did not preclude
• Anderson v. Wilco Life Ins. Co.
  943 F.3d 917· 11th Cir.· 2019-11-22 ·cited 36×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the face value of life insurance policies is includable in the amount in controversy when plaintiffs seek to reinstate lapsed policies, thus meeting the Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million threshold.