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

• Arnaldo Fernandez Batista & Rock & Fill Corp. v. Walter & Bernstein, P.A.
  378 So. 2d 1321· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-01-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the plaintiff law firm was only required to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence, in an action to recover on an express oral contract for legal services.
• The Barr Rubber Prods. Co. v. The SUN Rubber Co.
  425 F.2d 1114· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court's finding of perjury was clearly erroneous and influenced its other rulings, requiring reversal and remand for reconsideration of patent validity. The denial of the motion to join additional parties was affirmed.
• Hight v. State
  253 So. 3d 1137· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-08-08 ·cited 32×
  A statutory amendment to the Stand Your Ground law that shifts the burden of persuasion and proof from the defendant to the state constitutes a substantive change in the law and applies only prospectively from its effective date, not retroactively to cases completed before enactm
• Dufour v. State
  69 So. 3d 235· Fla.· 2011-02-03 ·cited 32×
  Donald William Dufour challenges a postconviction order determining he is not mentally retarded, precluding a bar to his death sentence under Atkins v. Virginia. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's determination that Dufour failed to establish all three require
• State v. Dreama Adea Bell
  854 So. 2d 686· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-07-18 ·cited 32×
  The State of Florida appealed a downward departure sentence imposed on Dreama Bell after revocation of her community control for violating driver's license restrictions. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court's reasons for the downward departure
• Herrington v. State
  643 So. 2d 1078· Fla.· 1994-10-20 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court's failure to make statutory findings under Florida Statutes section 775.084(1)(a)(1) and (2) when sentencing a defendant as a habitual offender constitutes harmless error when the evidence of prior convictions is unrebutted and un
• United States v. Morrison
  946 F.2d 484· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-10 ·cited 32×
  The court should have remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Shewmaker
  936 F.2d 1124· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in sentencing concurrently without considering Guideline departure, and that the defendant's criminal history and marijuana quantity calculations were proper.
• United States v. Wilkinson
  926 F.2d 22· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-11 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary, the evidence was sufficient to support the firearm conviction, the trial court's jury instructions were adequate, the 1988 search was lawful, and the sentence enhancement under t
• United States v. Zuleta-Alvarez
  922 F.2d 33· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the sentencing court did not err in denying the defendants' belated request to cross-examine witnesses at sentencing, as the government's evidence had sufficient indicia of reliability.
• United States v. Easterling
  921 F.2d 1073· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court's factual findings regarding drug quantity were not clearly erroneous and that the government did not breach the plea agreement in a material way. The court affirmed the sentence but remanded for a procedural correction.
• United States v. Blanche Elizabeth Dyer
  910 F.2d 530· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-07 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional and that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is sufficient for sentencing fact-finding.
• United States v. Hurtado
  905 F.2d 74· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 32×
  The government must prove voluntary consent to a warrantless search by a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence.
• United States v. Reynolds
  900 F.2d 1000· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1 is constitutional as applied to a conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846, and that a defendant cannot receive a reduction for acceptance of responsibility if they have also obstructed justice.
• United States v. Sleet
  893 F.2d 947· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court properly considered uncharged conduct in sentencing and accurately instructed the jury on entrapment.
• United States v. Vinson
  886 F.2d 740· 4th Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard is sufficient for factual findings during sentencing and that the defendant could be sentenced based on the foreseeable conduct of coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. McINTYRE
  836 F.2d 467· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting partially inaudible tape recordings and transcripts, nor in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. However, the court reversed the conspiracy conviction due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Hernandez
  829 F.2d 988· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to sever, suppress wiretap evidence, disclose informants, admit post-arrest threat evidence, or in admitting co-conspirator statements.
• Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank OF Or., N.A.
  815 F.2d 522· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 32×
  The jury verdicts for the bank on common law fraud claims collaterally estop prosecution of RICO claims based on mail fraud predicate acts.
• Elsleger v. State
  503 So. 2d 1367· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-03-18 ·cited 32×
  Robert Elsleger appeals his conviction following denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search at Fort Lauderdale Airport. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that the state need only prove voluntary consent to search by a preponderance of the evidence under or
• The United States v. Felton
  753 F.2d 276· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant was involved in two distinct conspiracies, thus reversing the district court's denial of the double jeopardy motion.
• Gundy v. United States
  728 F.2d 484· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between the swine flu vaccination and her alleged injuries, and therefore, the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
• Hiestand v. Geier
  396 So. 2d 744· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-03-24 ·cited 32×
  Martha Geier sought to establish a resulting trust in proceeds from the sale of Sun State Oil Company, claiming she had purchased a half-interest from the Hiestands for $57,000. The trial court imposed a resulting trust in her favor, finding by clear and convincing evidence that
• United States v. Brown
  478 F.2d 606· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard is constitutionally permissible for the initial commitment of a person acquitted by reason of insanity, even if a higher standard might be required for other civil commitments.
• Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., Inc.
  148 F.2d 407· 6th Cir.· 1945-03-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that in a non-jury case dismissed under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
• Click v. Dowd
  102 Fla. 336· Fla.· 1931-07-04 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, holding that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof for their plea of payment on a promissory note. The court emphasized the defendant's responsibility to prove payment by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Jefferson v. State
  264 So. 3d 1019· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-12-28 ·cited 31×
  Under the 2017 amendment to section 776.032(4), once a defendant raises a facially sufficient prima facie claim of self-defense immunity in a motion to dismiss, the burden shifts to the State to overcome that claim by clear and convincing evidence at a pretrial immunity hearing.
• Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Roberts
  938 So. 2d 513· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-03-24 ·cited 31×
  In this administrative driver's license suspension case, the Florida appellate court declined to exercise certiorari jurisdiction over the circuit court's determination that a highway patrol trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the driver's vehicle. The court found the tro
• Gore v. Harris
  772 So. 2d 1243· Fla.· 2000-12-08 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of all relief in an election contest challenging the certification of the 2000 presidential election results. The Court held that Gore established sufficient grounds for a manual recount of Miami-Dade County undervotes a
• United States v. Metro. Enters., Inc.
  728 F.2d 444· 10th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for conspiracy to rig bids under the Sherman Act, and that the indictment sufficiently stated an offense.
• United States v. Green
  981 F.3d 945· 11th Cir.· 2020-11-25 ·cited 30×
  RICO conspiracy is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), and Corey Green's sentence was procedurally unreasonable due to inadequate explanation and reliance on clearly erroneous facts.
• Joseph v. State
  103 So. 3d 227· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-12-12 ·cited 30×
  Leon Joseph sought a writ of prohibition to review the denial of his motion to dismiss based on Stand Your Ground self-defense immunity before trial for manslaughter with a deadly weapon. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that prohibition is an appropriate remedy to review
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2005-2. In re Standard Jury Instructions In Crim. Cases-Penalty Phase of Cap. Trials
  22 So. 3d 17· Fla.· 2009-10-29 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court authorized amendments to Standard Jury Instruction 7.11 for penalty phase capital cases to clarify jurors' role, reduce confusion about burdens of proof, and address deficiencies identified in the ABA Death Penalty Assessment Report regarding juror misco
• In re Guardianship OF Theresa Marie Schiavo v. Schiavo
  800 So. 2d 640· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-10-17 ·cited 30×
  In the third appellate decision in the Schiavo guardianship case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary denial of the Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment, finding they established a colorable entitlement to relief based on newly di
• United States v. Wood
  924 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and that the admission of a letter, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error. However, the court found that one uncharged drug transaction was improperly included in calculating t
• United States v. Malbrough
  922 F.2d 458· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search was legal, the destruction of evidence did not violate due process, and the government's arguments on appeal were without merit.
• United States v. Prescott
  920 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court's refusal to depart downwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines is not appealable unless based on a mistaken belief of no discretion, and that the procedures used in determining the base offense level did not violate due process.
• United States v. Duncan
  918 F.2d 647· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court did not err in enhancing a sentence for firearm possession during a drug offense, refusing to suppress evidence from a warrantless search, or denying the return of unmarked cash seized and applied to the sentence.
• United States v. Mares-Molina
  913 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 30×
  The dissent argues that the term 'manager' in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) should include individuals responsible for or controlling a business, money, or operation integral to the enterprise, not just those who control other people.
• Agosto-De-Feliciano v. Awilda Aponte-Roque
  889 F.2d 1209· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 30×
  The court joins in vacating and remanding the case to await Supreme Court clarification on job change lawsuits for state employees.
• Harrell v. State
  469 So. 2d 169· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-05-21 ·cited 30×
  Harrell appeals his probation revocation based on an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction. The court holds that although an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction without a right to counsel may be valid, it cannot serve as the sole basis for probation revocation and imprisonment withou
• United States v. Inendino
  604 F.2d 458· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and improper sentencing under the dangerous special offender statute lacked merit.
• United States v. Bailey
  537 F.2d 845· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the statute must be enforced as written, even if its interpretation renders it unreasonable or incoherent.
• United States ex rel. Frank Stachulak v. Coughlin
  520 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 30×
  Due process requires that the state prove a person is sexually dangerous beyond a reasonable doubt for commitment under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act.
• In re Grand Jury Investigation
  486 F.2d 1013· 3d Cir.· 1973-10-25 ·cited 30×
  A judge's prior role as United States Attorney in unrelated matters does not require disqualification, and questions posed to a grand jury witness with immunity are permissible if based on an independent source, even if illegal wiretaps occurred previously.
• Horne v. Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co.
  421 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-09 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the result, finding the error harmless due to special interrogatories that clarified the jury's findings.
• Henry van Hummell, Inc. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  364 F.2d 746· 10th Cir.· 1966-08-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Tax Court's finding that the petitioner accumulated profits in excess of the reasonable needs of its business, and that this accumulation was for the purpose of avoiding taxes, was supported by the evidence.
• Baltimore Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Pecos Mercantile Co.
  122 F.2d 143· 10th Cir.· 1941-07-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, refusing to sequester witnesses, admitting certain testimony, or refusing to submit the issue of arson to the jury, and that the verdict was not excessive.
• Sarasota Ice v. Lyle & Co.
  58 Fla. 517· Fla.· 1909-06-01 ·cited 30×
  This case addresses whether a final decree in an equity action should be affirmed on appeal when the evidence, though taken before a special master rather than the chancellor, supports the findings and no reversible errors of law appear. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the low
• In re Hill
  715 F.3d 284· 11th Cir.· 2013-04-22 ·cited 29×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the state of Georgia should not be allowed to execute Warren Lee Hill, a mentally retarded individual, despite procedural bars under AEDPA. The dissent emphasizes that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the execution of mentally retard