preponderance standard in Oregon

2019This court has stated that the preponderance standard “mean[s] more likely than not.” Parker v. Department of Revenue, TC–MD 101057C, 2012 WL 4763133 at *7 (Or Tax M Div Oct 8, 2012). “[I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet [her] burden of proof.” Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 265 , 798 P2d 235 (1990).

2019This court has stated that the preponderance standard “mean[s] more likely than not.” Parker v. Department of Revenue, TC–MD 101057C, 2012 WL 4763133 at *7 (Or Tax M Div Oct 8, 2012). “[I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet [her] burden of proof.” Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260, 265 , 798 P2d 235 (1990).

2005In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745, 754 , 102 S Ct 1388 , 71L Ed 2d 599 (1982), the United States Supreme Court considered whether, in a parental-rights termination proceeding, the Due Process Clause required a standard of proof higher than the preponderance standard that was mandated by a state law.

2005In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745, 754 , 102 S Ct 1388 , 71L Ed 2d 599 (1982), the United States Supreme Court considered whether, in a parental-rights termination proceeding, the Due Process Clause required a standard of proof higher than the preponderance standard that was mandated by a state law.

2024That argu- ment, however, is similarly foreclosed by Fortier, in which we also held that the trial court could revoke defendant’s probation even though he had been acquitted of the criminal charge that formed the basis of the probation revocation. 20 Or App at 616 ; see also State v. Donovan, 305 Or 332, 342 , 751 P2d 1109 (1988) (holding that if the state elects and the trial court agrees to conduct a probation revocation hearing before a criminal trial, a trial court’s finding that the state has failed to prove a necessary element by a preponderance of the evidence will collaterally estop th

2024That argu- ment, however, is similarly foreclosed by Fortier, in which we also held that the trial court could revoke defendant’s probation even though he had been acquitted of the criminal charge that formed the basis of the probation revocation. 20 Or App at 616 ; see also State v. Donovan, 305 Or 332, 342 , 751 P2d 1109 (1988) (holding that if the state elects and the trial court agrees to conduct a probation revocation hearing before a criminal trial, a trial court’s finding that the state has failed to prove a necessary element by a preponderance of the evidence will collaterally estop th

2023F., 306 Or App 544, 548 , 473 P3d 1141 (2020) (“The preponderance standard requires that the factfinder believe that the facts 26 Wall v. Ash asserted are more probably true than false.” (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.)).

2023F., 306 Or App 544, 548 , 473 P3d 1141 (2020) (“The preponderance standard requires that the factfinder believe that the facts 26 Wall v. Ash asserted are more probably true than false.” (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.)).

2018Dixon , 291 Or.App. at 211 -13 , 419 P.3d 774 (describing *388 Gallant v. Board of Medical Examiners , 159 Or.App. 175 , 177, 974 P.2d 814 (1999), and other cases holding that ORS 183.450 dictates the preponderance standard of proof for agency cases).

2018Dixon , 291 Or.App. at 211 -13 , 419 P.3d 774 (describing *388 Gallant v. Board of Medical Examiners , 159 Or.App. 175 , 177, 974 P.2d 814 (1999), and other cases holding that ORS 183.450 dictates the preponderance standard of proof for agency cases).

1999Most recently, in Gallant v. Board of Medical Examiners, 159 Or App 175 , 974 P2d 814 (1999), we examined the text and history of the statute in some depth to arrive at the conclusion that “in enacting ORS 183.450(5), the legislature intended to prescribe a standard of proof that corresponds to the preponderance standard.” Id. at 183 ; see also Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 379 , 882 P2d 606 (1994), rev den 320 Or 588 (1995); OSCI v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 98 Or App 548, 555 , 780 P2d 743 , rev den 308 Or 660 (1989).

1999Most recently, in Gallant v. Board of Medical Examiners, 159 Or App 175 , 974 P2d 814 (1999), we examined the text and history of the statute in some depth to arrive at the conclusion that “in enacting ORS 183.450(5), the legislature intended to prescribe a standard of proof that corresponds to the preponderance standard.” Id. at 183 ; see also Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 379 , 882 P2d 606 (1994), rev den 320 Or 588 (1995); OSCI v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 98 Or App 548, 555 , 780 P2d 743 , rev den 308 Or 660 (1989).

2005The Court relied on the factors identified in Mathews, 424 US 319 , noting that those factors applied generally to determinations regarding the constitutional burdens of proof in “particular proceedingts].” Santosky, 455 US at 754 .

1999The Court relied on the factors identified in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319 , 96 S Ct 893 , 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), noting that those factors applied generally to determinations regarding the constitutional burdens of proof in “particular proceeding[s].” Santosky, 455 US at 754 .

2020M., a non-ICWA case in which we applied the preponderance standard and concluded on de novo review that the juvenile court erred in taking jurisdiction based on the father’s domestic vio- lence. 296 Or App at 112 .6 Father posits that the facts in D.

2019State v. Gaines , 346 Or. 160 , 171, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) ; PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries , 317 Or. 606 , 610-11, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993).

2019State v. Gaines , 346 Or. 160 , 171, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) ; PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries , 317 Or. 606 , 610-11, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993).

2019State v. Gaines , 346 Or. 160 , 171, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) ; PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries , 317 Or. 606 , 610-11, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993).

2019State v. Gaines , 346 Or. 160 , 171, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) ; PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries , 317 Or. 606 , 610-11, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993).

2018In Bernard , a dental license revocation case, we stated that "fraud or misrepresentation is never presumed and that even in a civil action the burden is on the person claiming it to establish its existence by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence." 2 Or.App. at 36 , 465 P.2d 917 .

2018In Bernard , a dental license revocation case, we stated that "fraud or misrepresentation is never presumed and that even in a civil action the burden is on the person claiming it to establish its existence by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence." 2 Or.App. at 36 , 465 P.2d 917 .

2018State Bd. of Dental Examiners , 52 Or.App. 749 , 765, 629 P.2d 848 (1981), misrepresentation or fraud must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence but that the board applied only a preponderance standard here.

2018State Bd. of Dental Examiners , 52 Or.App. 749 , 765, 629 P.2d 848 (1981), misrepresentation or fraud must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence but that the board applied only a preponderance standard here.

2015On review of a trial court’s determination of a preliminary question of fact under OEC 104(1), “we view the record in the manner most consistent with that ruling and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices that the court could have made in support of its ruling.” State v. Wilson, 323 Or 498, 511 , 918 P2d 826 (1996).

2015On review of a trial court’s determination of a preliminary question of fact under OEC 104(1), “we view the record in the manner most consistent with that ruling and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices that the court could have made in support of its ruling.” State v. Wilson, 323 Or 498, 511 , 918 P2d 826 (1996).

2013That contention, however, is answered by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Holland v. Jackson, 542 US 649 , 124 S Ct 2736 , 159 L Ed 2d 683 (2004).

2013That contention, however, is answered by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Holland v. Jackson, 542 US 649 , 124 S Ct 2736 , 159 L Ed 2d 683 (2004).

2010See ORS 419B.476(1) (providing, in part, that “[a] permanency hearing shall be conducted in the manner provided in ORS * * * 419B.310”); ORS 419B.3KX3) (providing that “[t]he facts alleged in the petition showing the child to be within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419B. 100(1), unless admitted, must be established by a preponderance of competent evidence”). 18 In Matter of Baby Boy Doe, 127 Idaho at 462 , 902 P2d at 487 , the Idaho Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in determining that good cause to deviate from ICWA’s placement preferences existed, in part

2010See ORS 419B.476(1) (providing, in part, that “[a] permanency hearing shall be conducted in the manner provided in ORS * * * 419B.310”); ORS 419B.3KX3) (providing that “[t]he facts alleged in the petition showing the child to be within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419B. 100(1), unless admitted, must be established by a preponderance of competent evidence”). 18 In Matter of Baby Boy Doe, 127 Idaho at 462 , 902 P2d at 487 , the Idaho Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in determining that good cause to deviate from ICWA’s placement preferences existed, in part

2008ORS 107.434(2)(a)(C); Cole v. Wyatt, 201 Or App 1, 8 , 116 P3d 919 (2005) (applying the preponderance standard to a motion to modify parenting time).

2008ORS 107.434(2)(a)(C); Cole v. Wyatt, 201 Or App 1, 8 , 116 P3d 919 (2005) (applying the preponderance standard to a motion to modify parenting time).

2001Defendant, on the other hand, argues that in the absence of legislation to the contrary, ORS 10.095(5) requires a preponderance standard. 1 We agree with plaintiffs. *691 Zockert v. Fanning, 310 Or 514 , 800 P2d 773 (1990), describes two categories of civil cases in which the clear and convincing standard of proof might be proper.

2001Defendant, on the other hand, argues that in the absence of legislation to the contrary, ORS 10.095(5) requires a preponderance standard. 1 We agree with plaintiffs. *691 Zockert v. Fanning, 310 Or 514 , 800 P2d 773 (1990), describes two categories of civil cases in which the clear and convincing standard of proof might be proper.

2001In Bernards et ux. v. Link and Haynes, 199 Or 579 , 248 P2d 341 (1952), adhered to on rehearing 199 Or 604 , 263 P2d 794 (1953), for example, the court quoted extensively from a number of authorities before concluding that a railroad right of way was not abandoned when it was sold and converted into a road for logging trucks.

2001In Bernards et ux. v. Link and Haynes, 199 Or 579 , 248 P2d 341 (1952), adhered to on rehearing 199 Or 604 , 263 P2d 794 (1953), for example, the court quoted extensively from a number of authorities before concluding that a railroad right of way was not abandoned when it was sold and converted into a road for logging trucks.