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

• Getty v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  913 F.2d 1486· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-14
  The court held that the $10 million settlement payment received by the taxpayer was excludable from gross income because the taxpayer met the burden of proving it was acquired by bequest of property, not income from property.
• In the Interest of N.W.
  564 So. 2d 257· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-07-23
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding the father to be the perpetrator of the child's abuse, as the evidence did not support such a conclusion.
• United States v. Araneda
  899 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-13
  The court held that a continuance granted to some defendants does not violate the speedy detention hearing rights of other defendants who did not move for the continuance, unless those defendants acquiesced to the delay.
• United States v. James "Jimmie" Earl Aron
  904 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-04
  The court held that the district court's detention order was supported by the proceedings below and affirmed the order. The court found that the defendant's willful violation of release conditions was sufficient to support the conclusion that he would again violate court orders.
• United States v. ONE 1986 Nissan Maxima GL.
  895 F.2d 1062· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-08
  The court held that the government met its burden of proving probable cause that the vehicle was purchased with drug proceeds, and the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the funds came from an independent, non-drug-related source.
• BIG Horn Coal Co. v. Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs
  897 F.2d 1052· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-07
  The court held that the administrative law judge's errors in considering evidence were harmless and that the claimant's current employment as a union representative was not comparable to his prior mining work.
• United States v. Townsend
  897 F.2d 989· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-01
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying bail because the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants are flight risks, and no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure their appearance at trial.
• Kowalchick v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor
  893 F.2d 615· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-12
  The court held that the claimant had met the burden to invoke the interim presumption of disability under the Black Lung Benefits Act, and that the presumption could not be rebutted by the evidence presented.
• McGUIRK OIL Co., Inc. v. Amoco OIL Co.
  889 F.2d 734· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-21
  The court held that the contract terms, not the franchise relationship, governed the parties' obligations, and the jobbers failed to prove Amoco collected the full inspection fee.
• Bear v. Powell (In Re Powell)
  108 B.R. 343· S.D. Fla.· 1989-10-04
  The bankruptcy court's finding that the debt owed by Appellant Powell to Appellee Bear, Stearns & Co. was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(6) is affirmed.
• Thomas v. Swanson
  881 F.2d 523· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-01
  The court held that Social Security disability benefits received by a child count as support for purposes of disqualifying a parent under 38 U.S.C. § 765(9), and that the standard of proof for disqualification is a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence.
• Curtis v. Eikenberry
  877 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-13
  The court held that the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board's use of prior convictions, which were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a prior habitual criminal proceeding, does not violate double jeopardy because the burdens of proof in the two proceedings were different.
• Istvan Kele v. Carlson
  877 F.2d 775· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-08
  The court held that while the Parole Commission's discretion is broad, it is bound by its own regulations, allowing review for violations of those regulations.
• Hoskins v. Yanks (In Re Yanks)
  100 B.R. 595· S.D. Fla.· 1989-05-31
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in denying collateral estoppel based on a potential finding of reckless disregard, but reached the correct conclusion for the wrong reason; the state court judgment is not entitled to collateral estoppel effect because the standard o
• United States v. Bosquez-Villarreal
  868 F.2d 1388· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-02
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for release pending trial.
• Kinard v. State
  538 So. 2d 49· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-12-29 ·via Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence
  Irene Kinard appealed a judgment awarding her only $65 for towing charges on a forfeited BMW and denying recovery for storage and repair costs. The court affirmed, holding that while Kinard established a valid lien claim as a matter of law, she failed to prove by preponderance of
• Mullings v. Meachum
  864 F.2d 13· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-21
  The court held that even if a single jury instruction on circumstantial evidence was potentially misleading when viewed in isolation, the overall jury charge, which repeatedly emphasized proof beyond a reasonable doubt, did not alter the state's burden of proof.
• L.C. Bell v. United States
  854 F.2d 881· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-16
  The court held that Michigan law requires a plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the decedent had a greater than 50% chance of survival for a negligent diagnosis to be the proximate cause of death.
• Comas Johnson v. Island Creek Coal Co.
  846 F.2d 364· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-12
  A claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are entitled to the interim presumption of pneumoconiosis, and a single positive x-ray interpretation is insufficient if contradicted by more reliable conflicting evidence.
• Danzig v. Reliance Standard Life Ins.
  668 F. Supp. 1551· S.D. Fla.· 1987-09-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove he was totally disabled under the terms of the insurance policy, as he could still perform substantial duties of his occupation and light duty positions were available.
• Anderson v. Dep't of Transp.
  827 F.2d 1564· Fed. Cir.· 1987-09-03
  The court reversed the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision affirming the agency's charges, finding the evidence presented was unreliable and insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
• Zachery Leroy Peterson v. State
  503 So. 2d 1336· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-03-11
  Zachery Peterson appeals his drug conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from searches of his vehicle and briefcase following a traffic stop based on an anonymous BOLO tip. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding
• Moffatt Enters., Inc. v. Borden Inc.
  807 F.2d 1169· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-22
  The court held that the releases in the distributorship agreements did not shield Borden from liability for fraudulent misrepresentations that induced the plaintiffs to enter the contracts, and that the individual plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims.
• Schwab v. United States
  649 F. Supp. 1319· M.D. Fla.· 1986-12-15
  The United States is not liable under the FTCA for the negligence of an independent contractor or its employees, nor for the negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking to provide safety inspections, unless the government's involvement rises to the level of a joint endeavor.
• In re the Forfeiture OF ONE 1971 Mercedes Benz Auto.
  495 So. 2d 226· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-09-17
  A vehicle may be forfeited under Florida Statutes sections 932.701-932.704 when the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it was employed as an instrumentality in the commission of or in aiding or abetting the commission of a felony.
• United States v. DelVECCHIO
  800 F.2d 21· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-22
  The court held that the government met its burden of proving the separateness of the conspiracies by a preponderance of the evidence, affirming the district court's decision.
• Joseph Schachter & Co. v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  801 F.2d 563· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-20
  The court held that the district court did not err in its jury charges or evidentiary rulings regarding the presumption against suicide and the exclusion of homicide evidence.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Burton
  795 F.2d 1187· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-21
  The court held that the lawyer's acceptance of client funds for investment, within the context of an attorney-client relationship, constituted 'professional services' covered by his liability policy, and the insurer failed to prove policy exclusions for dishonest acts or willful
• United States v. One (1) Blue Lobster Vessel Named Tony, Jr.
  639 F. Supp. 865· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-21
  The court held that the vessel was subject to civil forfeiture because the government established probable cause that it facilitated the transportation of marijuana, and the claimant failed to prove the innocent owner defense.
• Johnson v. State
  472 So. 2d 553· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-07-05
  The court held that the trial court erred by not making a finding that sentencing under the habitual offender statute was necessary for public protection and by not having sufficient evidence of prior convictions.
• Moore v. State
  452 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-07-10
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to declare the children dependent, requiring reversal of the adjudication.
• In re Dobrowsky v. The Hanover Ins. Co.
  735 F.2d 90· 3d Cir.· 1984-05-24
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred by applying an "unequivocal medical testimony" standard to the entirety of the evidence, rather than using it for the threshold causation issue and then applying a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for the ultimate determinati
• State v. Otto Hellman
  448 So. 2d 1257· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-05-02
• Kerr v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  731 F.2d 219· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-05
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction regarding the burden of proof for fraud requires a new trial on certain claims, but affirmed the award for the dwelling's loss.
• Smith v. United States
  726 F.2d 428· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-06
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no error in its determination that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her illness was proximately caused by the swine flu inoculation.
• United States v. $7
  718 F.2d 776· 5th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·via Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence
  The court held that the district court's finding that the claimant's automobile was used in connection with his illegal gambling business was not clearly erroneous, thus affirming the forfeiture.
• Atlas Publ'g, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv.
  602 F. Supp. 407· S.D. Fla.· 1983-08-30
  The court held that the Judicial Officer's 'stop mail' order was supported by substantial evidence and properly reinstated.
• Butts v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.
  706 F.2d 107· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-02
  The court held that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish sufficient quarters of coverage for disability benefits.
• Hobgood v. Housewright
  698 F.2d 962· 8th Cir.· 1983-02-14
  Placing the burden on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense negating an element of the crime by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate due process.
• Scheinberg v. Smith
  550 F. Supp. 1112· S.D. Fla.· 1982-11-04
  The court held that Florida Statute § 390.001(4)(b) requiring spousal notification for abortions is unconstitutional because the evidence does not support a reasonable conclusion that properly performed abortions pose a greater than de minimis risk to a married woman's future abi
• Getty v. Reed
  674 F.2d 568· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-01
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that the attorney would have been suspended based solely on his in-court conduct, even without considering any potentially protected out-of-court statements.
• Thomson v. Armitage
  665 F.2d 1032· C.C.P.A.· 1981-12-03
  The court held that Thomson failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he reduced the invention to practice before Armitage's filing date.
• Laurence J. Terrazas v. Haig
  653 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-30
  The court held that the district court properly found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff specifically intended to relinquish his United States citizenship when he voluntarily took an oath of allegiance to Mexico.
• Winters Gov't Sec. Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank OF Breckenridge
  636 F.2d 230· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-22
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the plaintiff failed to prove its claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Gans v. State
  390 So. 2d 107· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-11-04
• Ltd. Flying Club, Inc. v. Wood
  632 F.2d 51· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-16
  The court held that the seller's representations in the airplane's logbook, including airworthiness certifications, created an express warranty that was not negated by an 'as is' clause, but reversed the fraud finding due to insufficient evidence of reckless disregard.
• Rainer W. Kristinus v. H. Stern COM. E IND. S. A.
  615 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-24
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to consider all evidence, including advertising and correspondence, when determining the buyer's breach of contract claim.
• Teledyne McCormick-Selph v. The United States
  588 F.2d 808· Ct. Cl.· 1978-12-13
  The court held that the Board of Contract Appeals erred by applying too high a standard of proof, and that the plaintiff is entitled to an equitable adjustment for costs incurred due to defective government specifications.
• Cent. Tel. Co. of Fla. v. Century Constr. Corp.
  49 Fla. Supp. 48· Leon Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1978-09-29
  Central Telephone Company of Florida sought declaratory relief and damages against Century Construction Corporation for the costs of relocating telephone facilities necessitated by Century's construction of a subdivision entrance road. The court held that Century, as the private
• JJJ Corp. v. The United States
  576 F.2d 327· Ct. Cl.· 1978-05-17
  The court held that subsequent events could be considered to determine if the corporation's accumulation of earnings was justified, especially when the taxpayer failed to prove specific plans for the funds at the close of the fiscal year.