(4) Preponderance of evidence
is comparable to the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case.
Delivering judgment in the case instituted by Maj-General Steven Guar (rtd.) against Meristem and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as defendants/respondents, the Tribunal ruled that the preponderance of evidence
before it showed that Meristem Securities Limited failed to discharge the duty of care required of it to the investor who is its client.
Rogina has already found the "preponderance of evidence
" indicates violations of city ordinances occurred in the business.
Students whose offenses are not prosecutable under criminal law because the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is too hard for prosecutors to prove may still be held to account under the student conduct code with its lesser "preponderance of evidence
" requirement for determining culpability.
The state attorney general's office said in a statement that Hill's lawyers failed to adequately prove the defendant is mentally disabled, despite the 2002 ruling in which a state judge agreed that a preponderance of evidence
indicated Hill was impaired.
Judge Hillman wrote in an order of release on conditions filed Thursday that, based on the evidence presented by the government, he found a preponderance of evidence
The preponderance of evidence
(supported by the Fournier analysis) shows that antidepressants are effective for severe depression.
This finding of increased risk in our field of obstetrics should not surprise us given the preponderance of evidence
for other fields that demonstrate that night is indeed a time of increased risk."
The dissenting judge found that there was no dispute that in Connecticut loss, a plaintiff must prove entitlement to recovery by the traditional approach namely, proof that by a preponderance of evidence
the defendants' negligence caused the "loss of chance."
Conviction would not depend upon a finding of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," or even a "preponderance of evidence
," but rather the presentation of evidence that would "have probative value to a reasonable person." A two-thirds vote of the commissioners present for a trial would be sufficient to uphold a guilty verdict and to impose the death penalty.
According to the court, the IRS had to prove the husband had actual subjective knowledge of the embezzlement income and satisfy this burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence
. Merely showing what a reasonably prudent person would be expected to know did not meet this burden (Culver v.