preponderance of the evidence standard in North Dakota

18 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2023 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 (23)

Case	Followed	Cited
Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkingreen nd · 1979 · cited in 3 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1984–1990 2 sentences 1990(Citing Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d at 220 .) Additionally, in applying the preponderance of the evidence test this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency or engage in independent fact finding. 1990(Citing Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d at 220 .) Additionally, in applying the preponderance of the evidence test this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency or engage in independent fact finding.	2	3
Guardianship of Simpsongreen calctapp · 1998 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Guardianship of Simpson, 67 Cal.App.4th 914 , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 389, 401 (1998); Matter of Guardianship of M.R.S., 960 P.2d 357 , 361 (Okla.1998). [¶ 8] California applies a preponderance of the evidence standard in guardianship termination proceedings when the parent has not been adjudicated unfit. 2005See, e.g., Guardianship of Simpson, 67 Cal.App.4th 914 , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 389, 401 (1998); Matter of Guardianship of M.R.S., 960 P.2d 357 , 361 (Okla.1998). [¶ 8] California applies a preponderance of the evidence standard in guardianship termination proceedings when the parent has not been adjudicated unfit.	2	2
In re F. S.green alaska · 1978 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. Ct., Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App. 1976); In re P. B. 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. CL, Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App.1976); In re P. B.	2	2
United States v. Tony E. Emerygreen ca8 · 1999 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022Id. at 852 ; see also United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921, 927 (8th Cir. 1999) (requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence).	1	1
SAEJ Enterprises v. WSIgreen nd · 2020 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See SAEJ Enter., LLC v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 2020 ND 61, ¶ 3 , 940 N.W. 2d 611 (applying the preponderance of the evidence standard to an ALJ’s finding of fact).	1	1
Commonwealth v. Nawngreen mass · 1985 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See, e.g., United States v. Palma, 760 F.2d 475, 480 (3d Cir.1985); Commonwealth v. Nawn, 394 Mass. 1 , 474 N.E.2d 545, 550 (1985); State v. Terpstra, 546 N.W.2d 280, 281 (Minn.1996). 2004See, e.g., United States v. Palma, 760 F.2d 475, 480 (3d Cir.1985); Commonwealth v. Nawn, 394 Mass. 1 , 474 N.E.2d 545, 550 (1985); State v. Terpstra, 546 N.W.2d 280, 281 (Minn.1996).	1	1
United States v. Joseph Palmagreen ca3 · 1985 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See, e.g., United States v. Palma, 760 F.2d 475, 480 (3d Cir.1985); Commonwealth v. Nawn, 394 Mass. 1 , 474 N.E.2d 545, 550 (1985); State v. Terpstra, 546 N.W.2d 280, 281 (Minn.1996).	1	1
United States v. Wattsgreen scotus · 1997 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156-57 , 117 S.Ct. 633 , 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986). 2004See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156-57 , 117 S.Ct. 633 , 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986).	1	1
State v. Pippingreen nd · 1993 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004A [¶ 6] Although “there must exist an immediate and intimate causal connection between the criminal conduct and the damages or expenses for which restitution is ordered,” State v. Pippin, 496 N.W.2d 50, 53 (N.D.1993), N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08 does not specify the burden of proof required to establish restitution, and we have not addressed the question. [¶ 7] The United States Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows different standards of proof to establish guilt at a criminal trial and to sustain a sentencing order, and that application of the prepond	1	1
State v. Terpstragreen minn · 1996 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See, e.g., United States v. Palma, 760 F.2d 475, 480 (3d Cir.1985); Commonwealth v. Nawn, 394 Mass. 1 , 474 N.E.2d 545, 550 (1985); State v. Terpstra, 546 N.W.2d 280, 281 (Minn.1996).	1	1
Achterberg v. Farmers State Bank & Trust Co.green neb · 1982 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Gibbs v. Gibbsgreen va · 1990 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate	1	1
Kiggins v. Petersongreen fla · 1953 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Johansen v. Schuettiggreen colo · 1948 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
McCollum v. Banksgreen sc · 1948 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate	1	1
Matter of Estate of Davidsongreen ark · 1992 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate	1	1
First Interstate Bank of Utah v. Keslergreen utah · 1985 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 1 sentence 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate	1	1
Matter of Estate of Thorpegreen arizctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate 1996See Matter of Estate of Thorpe, 152 Ariz. 341 , 732 P.2d 571, 573 (Ct.App.1986); Matter of Estate of Davidson, 310 Ark. 639 , 839 S.W.2d 214, 216 (1992); In re Piercen's Estate, 118 Colo. 264 , 195 P.2d 725, 111 (1948); In re Kiggins' Estate, 67 So.2d 915, 918 (Fla.1953); Estate of Turf, 435 A.2d 1087, 1089 (Me.1981); Palmer v. Palmer, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 245 , 500 N.E.2d 1354, 1357 (1986); Clardy v. National Bank of Commerce, 555 So.2d 64, 66 (Miss.1989); In re Estate of Camin, 212 Neb. 490 , 323 N.W.2d 827, 830 (1982); McCollum v. Banks, 213 S.C. 476 , 50 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1948); Matter of Estate	1	1
Estate of Turfgreen me · 1981 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Matter of Estate of Obragreen wyo · 1988 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Clardy v. National Bank of Commercegreen miss · 1989 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Palmer v. Palmergreen massappct · 1986 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
In Interest of Kupperiongreen nd · 1983 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Peterson v. Peterson green nd · 1997 2 sentences 2009E.g. , State v. Friedt , 2007 ND 108, ¶ 7 , 735 N.W.2d 848 ; Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen’s Ass’n , 1998 ND 120, ¶ 23 , 579 N.W.2d 171 ; Peterson v. Peterson , 1997 ND 14, ¶ 22 , 559 N.W.2d 826 . 2009E.g. , State v. Friedt , 2007 ND 108, ¶ 7 , 735 N.W.2d 848 ; Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen’s Ass’n , 1998 ND 120, ¶ 23 , 579 N.W.2d 171 ; Peterson v. Peterson , 1997 ND 14, ¶ 22 , 559 N.W.2d 826 .	2	2009–2009
Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen's Ass'n green nd · 1998 2 sentences 2009E.g. , State v. Friedt , 2007 ND 108, ¶ 7 , 735 N.W.2d 848 ; Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen’s Ass’n , 1998 ND 120, ¶ 23 , 579 N.W.2d 171 ; Peterson v. Peterson , 1997 ND 14, ¶ 22 , 559 N.W.2d 826 . 2009E.g. , State v. Friedt , 2007 ND 108, ¶ 7 , 735 N.W.2d 848 ; Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen’s Ass’n , 1998 ND 120, ¶ 23 , 579 N.W.2d 171 ; Peterson v. Peterson , 1997 ND 14, ¶ 22 , 559 N.W.2d 826 .	2	2009–2009
Sjostrand v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau green nd · 2002 2 sentences 2009Bureau , 2002 ND 125, ¶ 24 , 649 N.W.2d 537 . [¶19] Frokjer contends the Board was required to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard by the Administrative Agencies Practice Act and by the requirements of due process. 2009Bureau , 2002 ND 125, ¶ 24 , 649 N.W.2d 537 . [¶19] Frokjer contends the Board was required to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard by the Administrative Agencies Practice Act and by the requirements of due process.	2	2009–2009
North Dakota State Board of Medical Examiners—Investigative Panel B v. Hsu green nd · 2007 2 sentences 2009Frokjer argues N.D.C.C. § 43-28-21(1) must be harmonized with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46(5), and the Board must find that the allegations in the complaint have been established by substantial evidence which rises “to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Frokjer further contends that in accordance with this Court’s decision in Hsu, 2007 ND 9 , 726 N.W.2d 216 , the preponderance of the evidence standard is the minimum evidentiary standard which will satisfy the requirements of due process. [¶ 20] This Court will not consider or decide questions, particularly constitutional questions, that are 2009Frokjer argues N.D.C.C. § 43-28-21(1) must be harmonized with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46(5), and the Board must find that the allegations in the complaint have been established by substantial evidence which rises “to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Frokjer further contends that in accordance with this Court’s decision in Hsu , 2007 ND 9 , 726 N.W.2d 216 , the preponderance of the evidence standard is the minimum evidentiary standard which will satisfy the requirements of due process. [¶20] This Court will not consider or decide questions, particularly constitutional questions, that are	2	2009–2009
State v. Friedt neutral nd · 2007 2 sentences 2009E.g. , State v. Friedt , 2007 ND 108, ¶ 7 , 735 N.W.2d 848 ; Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen’s Ass’n , 1998 ND 120, ¶ 23 , 579 N.W.2d 171 ; Peterson v. Peterson , 1997 ND 14, ¶ 22 , 559 N.W.2d 826 . 2009E.g. , State v. Friedt , 2007 ND 108, ¶ 7 , 735 N.W.2d 848 ; Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen’s Ass’n , 1998 ND 120, ¶ 23 , 579 N.W.2d 171 ; Peterson v. Peterson , 1997 ND 14, ¶ 22 , 559 N.W.2d 826 .	2	2009–2009
STATE BD. OF MED. EXAM.-INVEST. v. Hsu neutral nd · 2007 2 sentences 2009Frokjer argues N.D.C.C. § 43-28-21(1) must be harmonized with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46(5), and the Board must find that the allegations in the complaint have been established by substantial evidence which rises “to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Frokjer further contends that in accordance with this Court’s decision in Hsu, 2007 ND 9 , 726 N.W.2d 216 , the preponderance of the evidence standard is the minimum evidentiary standard which will satisfy the requirements of due process. [¶ 20] This Court will not consider or decide questions, particularly constitutional questions, that are 2009Frokjer argues N.D.C.C. § 43-28-21(1) must be harmonized with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46(5), and the Board must find that the allegations in the complaint have been established by substantial evidence which rises “to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.” Frokjer further contends that in accordance with this Court’s decision in Hsu , 2007 ND 9 , 726 N.W.2d 216 , the preponderance of the evidence standard is the minimum evidentiary standard which will satisfy the requirements of due process. [¶20] This Court will not consider or decide questions, particularly constitutional questions, that are	2	2009–2009
In the Matter of the Guardianship of M.R.S. green okla · 1998 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Guardianship of Simpson, 67 Cal. App.4th 914 , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 389, 401 (1998); Matter of Guardianship of M.R.S., 960 P.2d 357 , 361 (Okla.1998). [¶ 8] California applies a preponderance of the evidence standard in guardianship termination proceedings when the parent has not been adjudicated unfit. 2005See, e.g., Guardianship of Simpson, 67 Cal.App.4th 914 , 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 389, 401 (1998); Matter of Guardianship of M.R.S., 960 P.2d 357 , 361 (Okla.1998). [¶ 8] California applies a preponderance of the evidence standard in guardianship termination proceedings when the parent has not been adjudicated unfit.	2	2005–2005
Hausauer v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau green nd · 1997 2 sentences 2001Hopfauf , at ¶ 15 (citing Hausauer v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau , 1997 ND 243, ¶ 13 , 572 N.W.2d 426 ). 2001Hopfauf , at ¶ 15 (citing Hausauer v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau , 1997 ND 243, ¶ 13 , 572 N.W.2d 426 ).	2	2001–2001
In Re Appeal No. 646, Term 1976 green mdctspecapp · 1977 2 sentences 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. CL, Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App.1976); In re P. B. 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. CL, Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App.1976); In re P. B.	2	1981–1981
State v. Layne green tennctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. Ct., Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App. 1976); In re P. B. 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. CL, Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App.1976); In re P. B.	2	1981–1981
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department of Klamath County v. Lerma green orctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. CL, Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App.1976); In re P. B. 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. CL, Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App.1976); In re P. B.	2	1981–1981
Imel v. State green indctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. CL, Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App.1976); In re P. B. 1981See, e. g., In the Matter of F. S., 586 P.2d 607 (Alaska 1978); In re Lerma, 29 Or.App. 713 , 564 P.2d 1100 (1977); In re Appeal No. 646(76) From Cir. CL, Etc., 35 Md.App. 94 , 369 A.2d 150 (1977); Imel v. State, 168 Ind.App. 384 , 342 N.E.2d 897 (1976); State v. Layne, 546 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn.App.1976); In re P. B.	2	1981–1981
Johnson v. United States green scotus · 2000 1 sentence 2023In Johnson, 529 U.S. at 700-01 , the United States Supreme Court reasoned: Although such violations often lead to reimprisonment, the violative conduct need not be criminal and need only be found by a judge under a preponderance of the evidence standard, not by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.	1	2023–2023
State v. Cox green minn · 2010 1 sentence 2022Id. at 852 ; see also United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921, 927 (8th Cir. 1999) (requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence).	1	2022–2022
McMillan v. Pennsylvania red scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2004See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156-57 , 117 S.Ct. 633 , 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986). 2004See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 156-57 , 117 S.Ct. 633 , 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986).	1	2004–2004
In Interest of ML green nd · 1976	1	1995–1995
Hanson v. Industrial Commission of North Dakota green nd · 1991	1	1993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ND § N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-19 (6) ND § N.D. Cent. Code § 14-05-22 (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

TX 467 (1939–2026) CA 362 (1967–2026) PA 334 (1982–2026) TN 323 (1980–2026) IL 168 (1967–2026) MI 152 (1980–2026) KY 141 (1978–2026) WA 137 (1971–2026) OH 132 (1984–2026) GA 131 (1983–2026) VA 128 (1922–2026) NC 93 (1982–2026) CO 92 (1982–2026) NY 88 (1973–2026) MD 88 (1971–2026) SC 87 (1909–2026) NJ 85 (1975–2026) FL 76 (1963–2026) CT 67 (1975–2026) LA 65 (1977–2019) WV 63 (1982–2026) MN 49 (1973–2026) UT 48 (1981–2025) DC 48 (1970–2026) KS 47 (1993–2026) AZ 39 (1981–2025) DE 38 (1972–2026) WY 38 (1979–2026) MO 37 (1951–2025) MA 36 (1978–2025) IN 36 (1980–2026) AK 36 (1977–2025) OR 31 (1975–2024) ME 29 (1974–2023) IA 29 (1980–2025) NV 28 (1980–2025) NM 28 (1978–2023) WI 27 (1981–2025) HI 27 (1989–2026) SD 23 (1975–2026) VT 23 (1983–2021) MS 20 (1988–2026) NH 18 (1982–2024) ND 18 (1981–2023) OK 17 (1976–2024) AL 16 (1992–2017) ID 14 (1992–2026) AR 11 (1955–2024) NE 11 (1985–2026) MT 9 (1973–2022) RI 5 (1991–2026) VI 3 (2011–2015)

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

Your account

Appearance