preponderance standard (Wyoming) · Go Syfert
← Wyoming issues

preponderance standard in Wyoming

5 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2004 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Wyoming courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Pittman v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Divisiongreen
wyo · 1996 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
1 sentence

2001Wyoming Workers' Compensation Diviston, 917 P.2d 614, 617 (Wyo.1996). [T18] To meet the preponderance standard, the claimant must present evidence which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its non-existence.

11
Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1987 · cited in 1 Wyoming opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Finally, we do not express an opinion on the proper order of proof that trial courts should follow in concluding that the preponderance standard has been satisfied in an on-going trial." Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 107 S.Ct. at 2779, n. 1 .

1987Finally, we do not express an opinion on the proper order of proof that trial courts should follow in concluding that the preponderance standard has been satisfied in an on-going trial.” Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 107 S.Ct. at 2779, n. 1 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Borchert green
wyo · 2000
2 sentences

2004Shenwin-Williams Company, 994 P.2d at 963 .

2004Sherwin-Williams Company, 994 P.2d at 963 .

32001–2004
Santosky v. Kramer green
scotus · 1982
2 sentences

2002Evaluation of the three Eldridge factors compels the conclusion that use of a 'fair preponderance of the evidence' standard in such proceedings is inconsistent with due process." 455 U.S. at 758 , 102 S.Ct. at 1397 . 3 [114] Turning now to our review of the instant case, as a consequence of Father's failure to comply with W.R.A.P. 3.03, this court cannot consider the agreed statement of proceedings submitted by the parties or any facts contained therein in rendering our decision.

2002Evaluation of the three Eldridge factors compels the conclusion that use of a 'fair preponderance of the evidence' standard in such proceedings is inconsistent with due process." 455 U.S. at 758 , 102 S.Ct. at 1397 . 3 [114] Turning now to our review of the instant case, as a consequence of Father's failure to comply with W.R.A.P. 3.03, this court cannot consider the agreed statement of proceedings submitted by the parties or any facts contained therein in rendering our decision.

12002–2002
Lego v. Twomey green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1987In Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), Justice White defined the test for admission of a confession as a preponderance of the evidence in considering a Jackson-Denno hearing.

1987In Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), Justice White defined the test for admission of a confession as a preponderance of the evidence in considering a Jackson-Denno hearing.

11987–1987

Where else courts name it

TX 409 (1972–2026) CA 122 (1921–2026) IA 99 (1980–2025) WA 95 (1971–2026) IL 88 (1939–2026) PA 62 (1975–2024) LA 49 (1977–2024) DC 42 (1970–2025) MD 41 (1964–2025) NJ 39 (1982–2026) OR 38 (1960–2024) NY 37 (1975–2026) CO 37 (1961–2026) AZ 22 (1981–2025) MA 21 (1978–2026) VT 21 (1983–2023) OH 20 (1984–2026) FL 20 (1962–2023) VA 17 (1975–2025) MI 16 (1974–2026) KY 16 (1992–2024) IN 16 (1975–2024) CT 15 (1978–2019) GA 14 (1949–2025) AK 14 (1981–2025) NV 13 (1987–2025) UT 13 (1991–2025) WI 12 (1981–2025) ME 11 (1984–2024) MN 10 (1985–2024) DE 10 (1982–2024) TN 10 (2000–2025) HI 10 (1981–2026) ND 8 (1981–2020) KS 8 (1977–2022) WV 7 (1982–2022) NH 7 (1977–2024) ID 7 (1996–2026) SD 7 (1987–2015) OK 6 (1980–2005) MO 6 (2000–2023) MS 6 (1988–2013) AR 5 (1974–2017) NC 5 (1982–2024) WY 5 (1987–2004) MT 4 (1979–2010) SC 3 (1996–2023) NM 2 (2000–2021) VI 2 (2013–2013) NE 2 (1948–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check