preponderance of evidence standard (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

preponderance of evidence standard in Maryland

32 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2023 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 (16)

CaseFollowedCited
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Siskindgreen
md · 2007 · cited in 6 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2009–2011
2 sentences

2011Rule 16-757(b); 4 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007). “ ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Id., 930 A.2d at 335 (citations omitted). “ “We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 706 , 4 A.3d 957, 964 (2010) (citation omitted).

2011Rule 16-757(b); 4 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007). “ ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Id., 930 A.2d at 335 (citations omitted). “ “We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 706 , 4 A.3d 957, 964 (2010) (citation omitted).

56
Andrea Sardis v. Overhead Door Corporationgreen
ca4 · 2021 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023These rulings are an incorrect application of Rules 702 and 104(a).” Id.; see Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., 10 F.4th 268, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2021) (observing that the then-proposed amendments to Federal Rule 702 would make explicit the preponderance of evidence standard of admissibility to the rule’s sufficiency of basis and reliability analyses; confirming that these rule revisions and clarifications “clearly echo[] the existing law on the issue” from Daubert, Kumho Tire, and Rule 702 itself).

2023These rulings are an incorrect application of Rules 702 and 104(a).” Id.; see Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., 10 F.4th 268 , 283-84 (4th Cir. 2021) (observing that the then-proposed amendments to Federal Rule 702 would make explicit the preponderance of evidence standard of admissibility to the rule’s sufficiency of basis and reliability analyses; confirming that these rule revisions and clarifications “clearly echo[] the existing law on the issue” from Daubert, Kumho Tire, and Rule 702 itself).

22
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edibgreen
md · 2010 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2010–2011
2 sentences

2011Rule 16-757(b); 4 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007). “ ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Id., 930 A.2d at 335 (citations omitted). “ “We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 706 , 4 A.3d 957, 964 (2010) (citation omitted).

2011Rule 16-757(b); 4 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007). “ ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Id., 930 A.2d at 335 (citations omitted). “ “We accept a hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 706 , 4 A.3d 957, 964 (2010) (citation omitted).

22
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Wardgreen
md · 2006 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2007–2009
2 sentences

2009We have omitted from our recitation of Judge Souder's conclusions of law the text of the various rule violations. 14 . " ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1,16 , 904 A.2d 477, 486 (2006)). 15 .

2009We have omitted from our recitation of Judge Souder's conclusions of law the text of the various rule violations. 14 . " ‘The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 54 , 930 A.2d 328, 335 (2007) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1,16 , 904 A.2d 477, 486 (2006)). 15 .

14
Hoffman v. Stampergreen
md · 2005 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021Hoffman v. Stamper, 385 Md. 1, 16 , 867 A.2d 276, 285 (2005).

2021Hoffman v. Stamper, 385 Md. 1, 16 , 867 A.2d 276, 285 (2005).

11
Cooper v. Rodriguezgreen
md · 2015 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021A motion for JNOV is reviewed “to determine whether it was legally correct, while viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and determining whether the facts and circumstances only permit one inference with regard to the issue presented.” Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680, 706 , 118 A.3d 829, 844 (2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[I]f there is any evidence adduced, however slight, from which reasonable jurors[, applying the preponderance of evidence standard,] could find in favor of the plaintiff[,]”

2021A motion for JNOV is reviewed “to determine whether it was legally correct, while viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and determining whether the facts and circumstances only permit one inference with regard to the issue presented.” Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680, 706 , 118 A.3d 829, 844 (2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[I]f there is any evidence adduced, however slight, from which reasonable jurors[, applying the preponderance of evidence standard,] could find in favor of the plaintiff[,]”

11
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Shepardgreen
md · 2007 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019This is not the same thing as a showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the individual was in fact driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired.” Id. at 608 , 158 A.3d at 550 . 11 cases, reasonable grounds equates to “reasonable articulable suspicion.” Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shepard, 399 Md. 241, 254 , 923 A.2d 100, 107 (2007).

2019This is not the same thing as a showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the individual was in fact driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired.” Id. at 608 , 158 A.3d at 550 . 11 cases, reasonable grounds equates to “reasonable articulable suspicion.” Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shepard, 399 Md. 241, 254 , 923 A.2d 100, 107 (2007).

11
David A. Bramble, Inc. v. Thomasgreen
md · 2007 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009David A. Bramble, Inc. v. Thomas, 396 Md. 443, 467 , 914 A.2d 136, 150 (2007); Port East Transfer, Inc. v. Liberty Mut.

2009David A. Bramble, Inc. v. Thomas, 396 Md. 443, 467 , 914 A.2d 136, 150 (2007); Port East Transfer, Inc. v. Liberty Mut.

11
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Guidagreen
md · 2006 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007The attorney subject to the disciplinary hearing may assert “an affirmative defense or a matter of mitigation or attenuation[, but] has the burden of proving the defense or matter by a preponderance of the evidence.” Maryland Rule 16-757(b); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 50-51 , 891 A.2d 1085, 1095 (2006).

2007The attorney subject to the disciplinary hearing may assert “an affirmative defense or a matter of mitigation or attenuation[, but] has the burden of proving the defense or matter by a preponderance of the evidence.” Maryland Rule 16-757(b); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 50-51 , 891 A.2d 1085, 1095 (2006).

11
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Garfieldgreen
md · 2002 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002See also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garfield, 369 Md. 85 , 99 n. 13, 797 A.2d 757 , 765 n. 13 (2002).

2002See also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garfield, 369 Md. 85 , 99 n. 13, 797 A.2d 757 , 765 n. 13 (2002).

11
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bakasgreen
md · 1991 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002As to this, the preponderance of evidence standard is the applicable measure of proof.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bakas, 322 Md. 603, 606 , 589 A.2d 52, 53 (1991), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bailey, 285 Md. 631, 644 , 403 A.2d 1261, 1268 (1979).

2002As to this, the preponderance of evidence standard is the applicable measure of proof.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bakas, 322 Md. 603, 606 , 589 A.2d 52, 53 (1991), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bailey, 285 Md. 631, 644 , 403 A.2d 1261, 1268 (1979).

11
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Baileygreen
md · 1979 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002As to this, the preponderance of evidence standard is the applicable measure of proof.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bakas, 322 Md. 603, 606 , 589 A.2d 52, 53 (1991), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bailey, 285 Md. 631, 644 , 403 A.2d 1261, 1268 (1979).

2002As to this, the preponderance of evidence standard is the applicable measure of proof.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bakas, 322 Md. 603, 606 , 589 A.2d 52, 53 (1991), quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bailey, 285 Md. 631, 644 , 403 A.2d 1261, 1268 (1979).

11
Pelling v. Illinois Racing Boardgreen
illappct · 1991 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

11
Matter of D'Angelogreen
nm · 1986 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

11
Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ.green
ill · 1986 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

11
Jordan v. Robertsgreen
wva · 1978 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (18)

CaseCitedYears
In Re: Adoption/guardianship of Rashawn H. green
md · 2007
2 sentences

2019Id.

2019Id.

42018–2019
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harris green
md · 2001
2 sentences

2007“The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which-is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.” Ward, 394 Md. at 16 , 904 A.2d at 486 (citing Harris, 366 Md. at 389 , 784 A.2d at 523 ).

2007“The clear and convincing standard of proof lies somewhere between a preponderance of evidence standard, which-is generally applied to civil cases, and beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is applied to most crimes.” Ward, 394 Md. at 16 , 904 A.2d at 486 (citing Harris, 366 Md. at 389 , 784 A.2d at 523 ).

22006–2007
Addington v. Texas green
scotus · 1979
2 sentences

2003The preponderance of evidence standard, the Court noted, indicates society’s “minimal concern with the outcome” and a conclusion that the litigants should “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 607 (quoting Addington, supra, at 423 , 99 S.Ct. at 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 329 ).

2003The preponderance of evidence standard, the Court noted, indicates society’s “minimal concern with the outcome” and a conclusion that the litigants should “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 607 (quoting Addington, supra, at 423 , 99 S.Ct. at 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 329 ).

21979–2003
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Krafft green
md · 2017
2 sentences

2019This is not the same thing as a showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the individual was in fact driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired.” Id. at 608 , 158 A.3d at 550 . 11 cases, reasonable grounds equates to “reasonable articulable suspicion.” Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shepard, 399 Md. 241, 254 , 923 A.2d 100, 107 (2007).

2019This is not the same thing as a showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the individual was in fact driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired.” Id. at 608 , 158 A.3d at 550 . 11 cases, reasonable grounds equates to “reasonable articulable suspicion.” Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shepard, 399 Md. 241, 254 , 923 A.2d 100, 107 (2007).

12019–2019
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Marcalus green
md · 2010
1 sentence

2010The Vanderlinde standard is applicable because Marcalus's flagship misconduct constituted a felony (Maj. op. at 520-21, 996 A.2d at 361-62 ) and is thus serious criminal conduct.

12010–2010
United States v. Fred L. Hatfield, Sr., D/B/A Hvac Construction Company, Incorporated green
ca4 · 1997
1 sentence

2005Id. at 69 .

12005–2005
State v. Manck green
md · 2005
2 sentences

2005Citing two decisions in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County that, due to the unusual procedure used by that court to effect those decisions, we were precluded from reviewing (see State v. Manck, 385 Md. 581 , 870 A.2d 196 (2005)), he argued as well that, under both the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the indictment against him was deficient for failing to allege principal-ship or the aggravating factors.

2005Citing two decisions in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County that, due to the unusual procedure used by that court to effect those decisions, we were precluded from reviewing (see State v. Manck, 385 Md. 581 , 870 A.2d 196 (2005)), he argued as well that, under both the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the indictment against him was deficient for failing to allege principal-ship or the aggravating factors.

12005–2005
Santosky v. Kramer green
scotus · 1982
2 sentences

2003The preponderance of evidence standard, the Court noted, indicates society’s “minimal concern with the outcome” and a conclusion that the litigants should “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 607 (quoting Addington, supra, at 423 , 99 S.Ct. at 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 329 ).

2003The preponderance of evidence standard, the Court noted, indicates society’s “minimal concern with the outcome” and a conclusion that the litigants should “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 755 , 102 S.Ct. at 1395 , 71 L.Ed.2d at 607 (quoting Addington, supra, at 423 , 99 S.Ct. at 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 329 ).

12003–2003
Heath William Burch v. Thomas R. Corcoran, Warden J. Joseph Curran, Jr. green
ca4 · 2001
2 sentences

2001In Burch v. Corcoran, 273 F.3d 577 (4th Cir.2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had before it the very issue raised here by BorchardtÔÇöwhether the preponderance of evidence standard mandated by ž 413(h) for the weighing process made the Maryland capital sentencing procedure invalid under Apprendi .

2001In Burch v. Corcoran, 273 F.3d 577 (4th Cir.2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had before it the very issue raised here by Borchardt — whether the preponderance of evidence standard mandated by § 413(h) for the weighing process made the Maryland capital sentencing procedure invalid under Apprendi .

12001–2001
Board of Education v. State Board of Education green
ill · 1986
1 sentence

2001Board of Education of City of Chicago v. State Board of Education, 113 Ill.2d 173 , 100 Ill.Dec. 715, 720-24 , 497 N.E.2d 984, 989-93 (1986) (proper standard of proof applicable to tenured-teacher dismissal proceedings, including those where conduct that might constitute crime is charged, is preponderance of the evidence standard); In the Matter of D’Angelo, 105 N.M. 391 , 733 P.2d 360, 361-62 (1986) (in attorney disciplinary proceeding, standard of proof in administrative hearing is preponderance of the evidence, absent allegation of fraud or statute or court rule requiring higher standard);

12001–2001
McDonald v. State green
md · 1988
2 sentences

1989We granted Wink’s petition for certiorari which raises the following question: “Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the preponderance of evidence standard applied by the trial judge met the reasonably satisfied standard required in violation of probation proceedings?” After the Court of Special Appeals’ decision in Wink , this Court decided McDonald v. State, 314 Md. 271 , 550 A.2d 696 (1988).

1989We granted Wink’s petition for certiorari which raises the following question: “Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that the preponderance of evidence standard applied by the trial judge met the reasonably satisfied standard required in violation of probation proceedings?” After the Court of Special Appeals’ decision in Wink , this Court decided McDonald v. State, 314 Md. 271 , 550 A.2d 696 (1988).

11989–1989
Tichnell v. State green
md · 1980
2 sentences

1985Instead, § 413 speaks in terms of requiring the sentencing authority to make findings that satisfy either the reasonable doubt or the preponderance of evidence standard ____” 287 Md. at 730, 415 A.2d 830 .

1985Instead, § 413 speaks in terms of requiring the sentencing authority to make findings that satisfy either the reasonable doubt or the preponderance of evidence standard...." 287 Md. at 730, 415 A.2d 830 .

11985–1985
Davis v. Director, Patuxent Institution green
mdctspecapp · 1976
2 sentences

1979Davis v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 29 Md.

1979Davis v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 29 Md.

11979–1979
Mulligan v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1973
2 sentences

1977Therefore, inasmuch as the trial judge in the instant case did not articulate his reasons for admitting the appellant’s statement into evidence, we deduce that he applied the preponderance of evidence test set out by Lego and the third Mulligan. [ 18 Md.

1977App. 588 , 308 A. 2d 418 (1973)].” Absent the circumstances, hereinafter discussed, we might well hold in this case that the use of the word “satisfactory” was synonymous with proof by a preponderance of the evidence. 2 We are precluded, however, from making súch a finding in view of the trial judge’s grievous misstatement of the law at the conclusion of the State’s evidence wherein he said that the defendant had the burden of convincing the court it was an improper statement.

11977–1977
Dower v. Director, Patuxent green
mdd · 1975
11976–1976
Jackson v. Denno green
scotus · 1964
11975–1975
The People v. Pearson green
ill · 1960
11974–1974
Agneslane, Inc. v. Lucas green
md · 1967
11972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MD § Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 5-323 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 72 (1952–2026) TX 47 (1965–2022) PA 38 (1985–2024) MD 32 (1972–2023) GA 25 (1936–2026) WA 21 (1984–2026) NY 16 (1904–2016) NJ 16 (1981–2021) FL 14 (1958–2024) CO 14 (1982–2024) LA 12 (1972–2013) VT 10 (1977–2016) IA 9 (1976–2023) SC 8 (2007–2022) CT 8 (1988–2009) IL 8 (1978–2018) ND 7 (1979–2007) TN 7 (2001–2022) OH 7 (1969–2018) MA 7 (1998–2014) IN 6 (1983–2013) DE 6 (2018–2026) MO 5 (1996–2014) AK 5 (1987–2023) KY 4 (1992–2025) WV 4 (1955–2025) NE 4 (1987–1998) KS 4 (1989–2024) MS 4 (1953–2003) OR 4 (1960–2007) WY 4 (1977–2011) NM 3 (1983–1997) WI 3 (1978–2023) AZ 3 (1981–2022) DC 3 (1976–1999) UT 3 (1991–1995) MI 3 (1980–2025) VA 2 (2020–2025) ID 2 (1991–2021) NV 2 (1979–1992) HI 2 (1997–2025) AR 2 (1968–2025)

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