Rational Connection Test For Presumptions

29 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Sipes v. United States
  321 F.2d 174· 8th Cir.· 1963-07-17 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the National Firearms Act, specifically 26 U.S.C. § 5851, is constitutional and does not violate the Tenth or Fifth Amendments, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Ambrose Badillo Caudillo v. United States
  253 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1958-03-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the statutory presumption in 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a, which deems possession of marihuana sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless explained to the jury's satisfaction, is constitutional. The court also held that the presumption was not defeated as a matt
• Ala. By-Products Corp. v. Killingsworth
  733 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the "bursting bubble" theory does not apply to the presumption under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b), and the employer bears the burden of persuasion on rebuttal. The court also affirmed the constitutionality of the presumption.
• Haywood Erwing v. United States
  323 F.2d 674· 9th Cir.· 1963-10-17 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the unexplained possession of cocaine hydrochloride is insufficient to support an inference of illegal importation, violating due process.
• The United States v. Hilmer Burdette Sandini
  816 F.2d 869· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred by barring the defendant from testifying in the forfeiture proceedings, requiring a new trial on that issue. However, the court upheld the constitutionality of the statutory presumption and the preponderance of the evidence standard fo
• United States v. Liguori
  438 F.2d 663· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that convictions based on statutory presumptions later found unconstitutional, where no proof was offered for essential elements of the crime, are fatally tainted by a lack of due process and should be vacated, even if the issue was not raised at trial.
• United States v. Black
  512 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court erred in applying a statutory presumption to shift the burden of proof to the defendant regarding the medical exception for dispensing controlled substances.
• Carroll Robinson v. United States
  327 F.2d 618· 8th Cir.· 1964-02-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's challenge to the admissibility of evidence based on an allegedly unlawful arrest and search was procedurally barred because it was not raised in the trial court. The court also found no prejudicial error in the jury charge regarding marihuana a
• Barrett v. United States
  322 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1963-09-05 ·cited 22×
  Statutory presumptions making unexplained presence at an unregistered still presumptive evidence of possession or carrying on the business of a distiller violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• Manning v. United States
  274 F.2d 926· 5th Cir.· 1960-01-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the statutory presumption under 26 U.S.C.A. § 4744(a)(1) is constitutional, and evidence obtained by state officers in an illegal search is admissible in federal court.
• United States v. Vankirk Moore and Harold Burnell
  571 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the statutory presumption of interstate transportation in 18 U.S.C. § 1201(b) is unconstitutional because there is no rational connection or substantial assurance that the presumed fact (interstate transport) is more likely than not to flow from the proved fac
• United States v. TOT
  131 F.2d 261· 3d Cir.· 1942-07-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the seizure of the firearm was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest, the statute's definition of 'firearm' was broad enough to include the pistol, the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess such a firearm, and the statutory presumption of ille
• United States v. Wolters
  656 F.2d 523· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a taxpayer cannot generally rely on the Fifth Amendment to justify a complete failure to file an income tax return, and probation conditions requiring filing do not violate constitutional rights.
• United States Steel Corp. v. Josephine Oravetz (Widow of Michael Oravetz) and Director
  686 F.2d 197· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the administrative law judge's finding of entitlement to black lung benefits was supported by substantial evidence, and the statutory presumption of disability is constitutional.
• United States v. Armand Matalon
  425 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the statutory presumption in 18 U.S.C. § 545, authorizing conviction for possession of illegally imported goods unless explained, was constitutional as applied to the appellant given the overwhelming evidence of his knowledge of illegal importation.
• Benton v. United States
  232 F.2d 341· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-01 ·cited 8×
• Minski v. United States
  131 F.2d 614· 6th Cir.· 1942-12-02 ·cited 8×
  Statutory presumptions in the Federal Firearms Act, requiring proof of one fact to be presumptive evidence of another, are unconstitutional if they lack a rational connection between the proved and presumed facts, violating the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
• Hamilton v. State
  329 So. 2d 283· Fla.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Section 509.151, Florida Statutes, which creates a prima facie presumption of intent to defraud for failure to pay for lodging after demand, is constitutional.
• United States v. Armenteros
  452 F.2d 1177· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The statutory presumption of knowledge of illegal importation from possession of a large quantity of cocaine is constitutional, especially when supported by independent evidence of knowledge.
• Johnson v. United States
  422 F.2d 555· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statutory presumption of guilt from possession of heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 174 is constitutional, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• McLEAN v. Moran
  963 F.2d 1306· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the application of Nev.Rev.Stat. § 484.381(1) as a mandatory conclusive presumption violated the petitioner's due process right to have the state prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Ballard
  449 F.2d 782· 4th Cir.· 1971-10-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge's participation and jury instruction regarding the inference from possession of recently stolen property were not reversible error.
• Greene v. United States
  266 F.2d 932· D.C. Cir.· 1959-05-14 ·cited 2×
• Vernell Cooper v. City OF Fort Lauderdale
  203 So. 2d 16· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-10-10 ·cited 1×
  Vernell Cooper challenges his municipal court conviction for willfully destroying property subject to a search warrant. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, holding that the municipal ordinance's presumption that destroyed property was the object of
• Morgan v. Shirley
  958 F.2d 662· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-27
  The court held that the use of a statutory presumption as evidence in a DUI case did not violate due process by impermissibly shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant.
• Robinson v. United States
  401 F.2d 523· 5th Cir.· 1968-10-07
  The court held that the statutory presumption used in the conviction was constitutional and that the defendant waived any self-incrimination issues by testifying.