Sentences with phrase «standard of preponderance of the evidence»

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.

Not exact matches

DeVos has also urged universities, when determining the guilt of the accused, to move from the standard of «preponderance of evidence» to one of «clear and convincing evidence.»

Under the Obama - era guidance, colleges were instructed to use «preponderance of the evidence» as the standard to evaluate and investigate a sexual assault claim.

The «preponderance of the evidence» standard is used for all civil rights cases and it's a civil right to be able to go to college in a safe and nondiscriminatory environment.»

On the question of sexual assault on campus, the Obama administration issued a «Dear Colleague» letter in 2011 alerting colleges and universities that they should use a «preponderance of evidence» standard — rather than the more stringent «beyond a reasonable doubt» standard — when adjudicating sexual assault cases.

In 2011, the Obama administration told officials that they were obligated under Title IX to respond promptly to reports of sexual violence and that they must use a standard of «preponderance of the evidence» when determining whether an assault occurred.

... a «preponderance of the evidence»... merely requires that it is «more likely than not» that someone is responsible for what they are accused of... it is our judiciary's lowest standard of proof... 50.01 % certain that the accused person is at fault....

The debtor must establish, by a preponderance of evidence, the following: (1) the debtor would not be able, at their present income and expense levels, to maintain a «minimal» living standard while repaying the debt; (2) «additional circumstances» demonstrate that this situation will continue for much of the repayment period; and (3) the debtor has attempted in good faith to pay the debt.

The standard of proof applied by the Student Judicial Committee shall be «preponderance of the evidence.»

If I am a scientist who believes I am right am I more fearful of the possibility of prison from a charge measured a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, or financial / professional ruin from a charge measured against preponderance of the evidence?

RE # 193 my legal understanding (as a layperson) would be that we can not make a criminal case re the link between CC & hurricane intensity of a specific hurricane, which requires «beyond a resonable doubt» (sort of like a scientific standard of p <.05), but there could be a civil case, which requires a «preponderance of evidence.»

This is more problematic in criminal trials, where jury questions could provide evidence pushing a case over the threshold of proof needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution failed to provide, than in civil cases with a preponderance of the evidence standard.

AND the appeals court making the claim that the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he / she was damaged then «changing» that level of proof to what appears to be a higher standard by saying, «On review, we will not reverse the judgment unless the evidence as a whole unerringly and unmistakably leads to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.»

50 - 50 doesn't allow «preponderance of evidence» (the civil standard) let alone «reasonable doubt,» (the 95 % criminal standard).

While the PA DUI attorney needs to negate guilt under the «beyond a reasonable doubt» standard, the PA personal injury attorney would only need to show a preponderance of evidence in their favor.

Subsequently, many courts have interpreted Wyeth as affirmatively holding both that the burden in such a case is on the defendant to prove the FDA would have rejected the warning advocated by the plaintiff, and that the standard by which this must be shown is an «exacting» one beyond the normal preponderance - of - the - evidence standard.

Under law, a victim of medical malpractice has the burden of proof in the case to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant health care provider was negligent or «breached the standard of care.»

It is defined differently in different states and jurisdictions, however, most jurisdiction, including California define the civil lawsuit proof standard as «by a preponderance of the evidence» for most types of claims and, the slightly higher standard of «clear and convincing evidence» for claims for punitive damages (damages meant to punish the defendant rather than just compensate the victim).

The standard which plaintiffs are held to in civil cases, including automobile accident cases, is called the «preponderance of the evidence» standard.

The «preponderance of the evidence» standard has been defined to mean that the evidence presented by plaintiffs must be more likely to be true or accurate than not true.

My understanding is that defendants in Britain have to prove statements true by the preponderance of evidence, whereas in the U.S. the standard of evidence is «compelling» (a lower standard).

The burden to overturn a credibility determination is very high and that the Board's general standard is not to disturb such determinations unless «a clear preponderance of the all the relevant evidence convinces [the Board] that they are incorrect.»

While a criminal prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the victim in a civil proceeding can prevail by proving a preponderance of the evidence that a sexual assault occurred — a much easier standard to meet.

«preponderance of the evidence» but for grave risk it is «clear and convincing evidence,» a much higher standard.

But remember, the preponderance of the evidence standard is relatively low and you can present other evidence, such as eyewitness testimony and photographs of the accident scene.

Where a prosecutor pursues such an action, a hearing must be held, and the prosecutor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (a far less standard than «beyond a reasonable doubt») that animal cruelty has occurred.

The standard of proof in a criminal case — beyond a reasonable doubt — differs from that in a civil case — the preponderance of the evidence (which basically means it was more likely than not something occurred in a certain way).

The preponderance of the evidence standard can be illustrated for juries by comparing it to the scale of justice.

The standard is that «[t] he proponent of the expert opinion bears the burden of establishing qualification, reliability, and helpfulness by a preponderance of the evidence.»

There are no rules of evidence, and finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is no longer required; a preponderance of the evidence is all that is required — a far smaller standard.

Has Google shown by a preponderance of the evidence that its use in Android of the declaring lines of code and their structure, sequence, and organization from Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4 and Java 2 Standard Edition Version 5.0 constitutes a «fair use» under the Copyright Act?

In a tort case, the lower preponderance of evidence standard is used.

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....

[10] Moreover, most American jurisdictions have in recent decades required that punitive damages be awarded only if the plaintiff has proven the defendant's culpable state of mind with «clear and convincing evidence,» rather than the traditional, «preponderance of the evidence» standard.

In almost all civil cases the standard is «preponderance of the evidence» — ...

PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE - a standard of proof in a civil action, meaning the degree of difficulty facing a litigant in proving his or her casOF THE EVIDENCE - a standard of proof in a civil action, meaning the degree of difficulty facing a litigant in proving his or her casof proof in a civil action, meaning the degree of difficulty facing a litigant in proving his or her casof difficulty facing a litigant in proving his or her case.

The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence;

The standard of proof on which an arbitration hearing decision is based shall be a «preponderance of the evidence.»

Consideration of the entire course of events The standard of proof in Board - conducted arbitration is a preponderance of the evidence, and the initial burden of proof rests with the party requesting arbitration (see Professional Standards Policy Statement 26).