Actually [the district court] did commit one clear error on the fiduciary count, and that was to apply
the normal civil standard of preponderance of the evidence, rather than the higher standard of proof — proof by clear and convincing evidence — that Illinois requires to establish the existence of a fiduciary duty outside of the per se categories such as lawyer - client and guardian - ward.
If the parties do not mention the standard of proof in a civil case, the district judge is bound to apply
the normal civil standard, just as he will apply the substantive law of the forum state if the case is a diversity case and neither party argues choice of law.
Not exact matches
The
normal standard of proof in a
civil case is, of course, proof by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof by clear and convincing evidence....