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

• In re Petition of Jane DOE for a Judicial Waiver of Parental Notice of Termination of Pregnancy. Jane Doe
  973 So. 2d 548· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-01-04 ·cited 29×
  A minor sought judicial waiver of Florida's parental notification requirement for abortion under a statute permitting waiver if the minor proves sufficient maturity by clear and convincing evidence or that notification is not in her best interest by a preponderance of the evidenc
• United States v. Frierson
  945 F.2d 650· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-01 ·cited 29×
  The court held that conditioning a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility on an admission that would incriminate the defendant in a future state prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• State v. Edwards
  536 So. 2d 288· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-12-12 ·cited 29×
  The State of Florida appeals the trial court's order suppressing hearsay statements of alleged coconspirators in a cocaine trafficking conspiracy case. The court addresses what quantum of evidence is required to establish a conspiracy before admitting coconspirator statements und
• United States v. Verrusio
  803 F.2d 885· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss charges that violated a plea agreement, and that the government must prove a breach of a plea agreement by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Heitman v. Davis
  127 Fla. 1· Fla.· 1937-01-20 ·cited 29×
  In this negligence case arising from an automobile collision, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict awarding $3,000 to a minor plaintiff, rejecting the defendant driver's challenge to the jury instructions, the sufficiency of evidence, and the verdict amount.
• Little Tommy Tucker v. State
  884 So. 2d 168· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-07-23 ·cited 28×
  Tommy Tucker appealed his convictions for carrying a concealed firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and felon in possession of a firearm. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to sever t
• State v. Silver
  723 So. 2d 381· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-12-30 ·cited 28×
  Florida appealed a downward departure sentence imposed on Silver following his plea to racketeering and organized fraud charges. The court reversed because the defendant presented no admissible evidence supporting the departure grounds, only unsworn attorney argument.
• State v. Gordon
  645 So. 2d 140· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-11-16 ·cited 28×
  Florida appeals a downward sentencing departure in a drug case, arguing the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to justify reducing a cocaine distribution sentence below guideline ranges based on the defendant's drug addiction. The court reverses, holding that substance abuse
• United States v. Aundre Ross
  905 F.2d 1050· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-20 ·cited 28×
  The Sentencing Guidelines do not violate due process by assigning weight to factors without adjustment for uncertainty, and the evidence supported the finding that the defendant was capable of participating in the negotiated drug transaction.
• United States v. Beaulieu
  900 F.2d 1537· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a two-level upward adjustment to a defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice based on untruthful testimony at trial does not violate due process or the right to testify, and is permissible under the Sentencing Guidelines if supported by sufficient eviden
• United States v. Candito
  892 F.2d 182· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court properly calculated the defendant's sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines by including all foreseeable drug transactions and that findings supporting the sentence need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Garlington v. O'Leary
  879 F.2d 277· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 28×
  The admission of a codefendant's statement as a coconspirator's statement did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Benefield
  874 F.2d 1503· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 28×
  The district court erred in denying the defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing on his double jeopardy claim.
• United States v. Rios
  842 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy to import cocaine and that the admitted co-conspirator statements were made in furtherance of that conspiracy.
• United States v. Sunrhodes
  831 F.2d 1537· 10th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the full demands of the Confrontation Clause do not apply to restitution proceedings under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, and that the admission of telephone testimony and the order of restitution to the Indian Health Service were proper.
• Consolidation Coal Co. v. Sanati
  713 F.2d 480· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the administrative law judge and the Benefits Review Board erred by applying the wrong standard in evaluating evidence for black lung benefits.
• Clover Hayes v. Maggio
  699 F.2d 198· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court clearly erred in finding the plea bargain did not include a promise of parole eligibility, reversing the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• DOE v. Anrig
  692 F.2d 800· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings, agreeing that the district court reached an acceptable result despite not properly articulating the standards.
• United States v. Futch
  637 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 28×·via Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, finding the two conspiracies charged were separate offenses.
• Hennessy v. Schmidt
  583 F.2d 302· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial will be treated as an appeal from the underlying judgment if the appellant's intent to appeal the judgment is clear and no prejudice results. The court affirmed the district court's judgment awarding a b
• United States v. Articles OF Device Consisting OF Three Devices . . . "Diapulse
  527 F.2d 1008· 6th Cir.· 1976-01-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the claimant because it improperly considered the preponderance of the evidence and failed to properly evaluate expert affidavits regarding common knowledge of device directions.
• Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  511 F.2d 839· 4th Cir.· 1975-01-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the union was responsible for damages resulting from illegal secondary boycotts and that a partial new trial limited to damages was appropriate.
• Ward King v. Laborers Int'l Union OF N. Am.
  443 F.2d 273· 6th Cir.· 1971-05-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by instructing the jury that a violation of the Fair Employment Act required an intentional pattern and practice of discrimination, as this instruction was consistent with the plaintiff's pleaded cause of action.
• Crail v. United States
  430 F.2d 459· 10th Cir.· 1970-08-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's claim of mental incompetence at the time of his guilty plea was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous.
• State v. McRae
  49 Fla. 389· Fla.· 1905-01-01 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that disbarment proceedings against attorneys are civil, not criminal, in nature, and therefore depositions of absent witnesses taken on commission and written interrogatories are admissible evidence. The Court granted a mandamus petition compelling
• The Jacksonville St. R.R. Co. v. Walton
  42 Fla. 54· Fla.· 1900-01-01 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed procedural challenges to a bill of exceptions in a personal injury action arising from a street car-railroad crossing accident. The court established important principles governing the preparation and review of bills of exceptions, particularly
• Velasquez v. State
  9 So. 3d 22· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-02-02 ·cited 27×
  When a defendant raises immunity under Florida Statute section 776.032 via a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss, the trial court must apply that rule's procedural framework, which mandates denial of the motion when the state presents evidence disputing material facts, rather than
• Beber v. State
  887 So. 2d 1248· Fla.· 2004-11-10 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision sustaining Rick Beber's capital sexual battery conviction based solely on a child victim's out-of-court hearsay statements that contradicted the child's trial testimony. The Court held that prior inc
• Dep't OF Hwy. Safety v. Dean
  662 So. 2d 371· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-09-22 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a hearing officer is not required to believe a licensee's unrebutted testimony of recanting a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test, and can rely on the officer's sworn report of refusal.
• United States v. Franco
  874 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a law enforcement agent can be a qualified witness to authenticate business records under Rule 803(6) if they understand the record-keeping system, and that supplemental jury instructions were proper.
• Doe v. Rollins Coll.
  77 F.4th 1340· 11th Cir.· 2023-08-14 ·cited 26×
  A male college student challenged Rollins College's disciplinary findings that he violated the college's sexual misconduct policy by digitally penetrating a female student without her consent, asserting Title IX discrimination claims and a breach of contract claim. The Eleventh C
• Hair v. State
  17 So. 3d 804· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-08-19 ·cited 26×·via Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence
  A person using defensive force against an unlawful and forcible entrant into an occupied vehicle is immune from criminal prosecution under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, even if the weapon accidentally discharged.
• Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
  875 So. 2d 563· Fla.· 2004-05-20 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203 to provide procedures for raising mental retardation as a bar to execution in capital cases, and amended Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c) to allow state appeals of mental retardation determinations. The adopte
• Mickler v. State
  682 So. 2d 607· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-10-30 ·cited 26×
  Cheryl Mickler appealed her conviction for abuse or neglect of a disabled adult and challenged her sentence, particularly the $46,899.29 in costs of prosecution assessed against her. The court affirmed the conviction but struck the costs of prosecution due to the trial court's fa
• Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Stewart
  625 So. 2d 123· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-10-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Florida Statutes sections 322.261 and 322.2615 are facially constitutional and do not violate due process.
• Delks v. State
  622 So. 2d 624· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-08-13 ·cited 26×
  Robert Delks appeals a restitution order for grand theft, arguing the state failed to prove the full amount of victim damages. The court agreed, reducing the restitution obligation from $4,000 to $3,000 because the state failed to meet its burden of proving the disputed $1,000 by
• United States v. Valle
  929 F.2d 629· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court properly departed upward from the Sentencing Guidelines because the appellants' intent to profit from their crime by retaining the stolen money was an aggravating circumstance not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission, and the e
• United States v. Bianco
  922 F.2d 910· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 26×
  A defendant's sentence can be enhanced under U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.3(a)(1) and 2D1.1(b)(1) due to a codefendant's firearm possession if that possession was reasonably foreseeable, even if the defendant did not possess the firearm or know of its possession.
• United States v. Koonce
  884 F.2d 349· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, no prejudicial error in jury instructions or admission of prior bad acts, and that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were constitutional and properly applied.
• United States v. Angelica
  859 F.2d 1390· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) can be applied to continuing offenses that extend beyond its effective date, and that restitution can be ordered for victims of the entire scheme, not just those named in the indictment. However, t
• United States v. Yancey
  827 F.2d 83· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Probation Act does not limit a court's authority to revoke probation for offenses committed prior to the commencement of the probation period, and that the district court's revocation order was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
• United States v. Garver
  809 F.2d 1291· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting co-conspirator statements, evidence of fee payments, and denying severance motions, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and RICO violations.
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Musa
  785 F.2d 370· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was not so overwhelming as to warrant overturning the jury's findings that the insureds did not plan the arson or commit fraud, and that the jury's findings were not inconsistent.
• Beck v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am. (C.W.A.)
  776 F.2d 1187· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the statutory claim under the NLRA and the duty of fair representation claim provided a basis for federal jurisdiction, allowing the judgment to be affirmed even if the constitutional claim lacked jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the district court's dete
• Riley E. Jackson v. Veterans Admin.
  768 F.2d 1325· Fed. Cir.· 1985-07-25 ·cited 26×
  The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) improperly overturned the presiding official's credibility determination regarding one incident of alleged sexual harassment, but reasonably upheld another. The penalty of removal was deemed excessive based on the single established incid
• Devine v. R.A. Sutermeister
  724 F.2d 1558· Fed. Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 26×
  An arbitrator's award mitigating an employee's removal for falsification to a suspension is valid, even if the appointment was obtained through misrepresentation, and the arbitrator is not strictly bound by MSPB precedents.
• Baumstimler v. Bueford B. Rankin
  677 F.2d 1061· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred by instructing the jury that the defendant had the burden to prove patent invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance of the evidence, when prior art was not considered by the Patent Office. The court also
• Avery v. Homewood City Bd. OF Educ.
  674 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 26×
  A discharge based in part on an impermissible ground, such as pregnancy out of wedlock, is unlawful unless the employer proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision even without the impermissible ground. A discharge solely for pregnancy out
• United States v. Anthon
  648 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 26×
  The third Miranda warning was inadequate, and statements made thereafter were involuntary, thus they should have been excluded.
• Carter v. Jago
  637 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-22 ·cited 26×