13 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Idaho State Bargreen2 sentences1995Further the burden is on the petitioner ... to show that the findings are not supported by the evidence.... [W]e apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in Clients’ Security Fund actions in accordance with the applicable rule, I.B.C.R. 613(e), [which] provides that “ ‘[a]ny issue of fact shall be proved by a preponderance of the evidence’.” Id. at 369 , 848 P.2d at 427 (citations omitted and text of footnote included in quotation). 1995Further the burden is on the petitioner ... to show that the findings are not supported by the evidence.... [W]e apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in Clients’ Security Fund actions in accordance with the applicable rule, I.B.C.R. 613(e), [which] provides that “ ‘[a]ny issue of fact shall be proved by a preponderance of the evidence’.” Id. at 369 , 848 P.2d at 427 (citations omitted and text of footnote included in quotation). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Arvizugreen2 sentences2020As previously noted, while “an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient to justify a stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27). 2020As previously noted, while “an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient to justify a stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Selina N.green2 sentences2022It follows that the requisite standard of proof for such determination should be at the level required for a termination of parental rights.” In re Interest of Jac’quez N, 266 Neb. 782, 789 , 669 N.W.2d 429, 435 (Neb. 2003). 2022It follows that the requisite standard of proof for such determination should be at the level required for a termination of parental rights.” In re Interest of Jac’quez N, 266 Neb. 782, 789 , 669 N.W.2d 429, 435 (Neb. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2020As previously noted, while “an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient to justify a stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27). 2020As previously noted, while “an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient to justify a stop, the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 ). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2015Analysis In Strickland , the United States Supreme Court rejected a preponderance of the evidence standard for demonstrating prejudice when asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 697 (“[A] defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.”). 2015Analysis In Strickland , the United States Supreme Court rejected a preponderance of the evidence standard for demonstrating prejudice when asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 697 (“[A] defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hensleygreen2 sentences2010The determination “is grounded in the standard of reasonableness embodied in the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 228 , 105 S.Ct. 675, 680 , 83 L.Ed.2d 604, 611 (1985). 2010The determination “is grounded in the standard of reasonableness embodied in the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 228 , 105 S.Ct. 675, 680 , 83 L.Ed.2d 604, 611 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Aitkengreen2 sentences1997Relying upon Culbertson , in State v. Aitken, 121 Idaho 783, 784 , 828 P.2d 346, 347 (Ct.App.1992), this Court stated that a preponderance of the evidence standard applied where the State sought to prove that the defendant’s confession and his consent to a search were voluntary. 1997Relying upon Culbertson , in State v. Aitken, 121 Idaho 783, 784 , 828 P.2d 346, 347 (Ct.App.1992), this Court stated that a preponderance of the evidence standard applied where the State sought to prove that the defendant’s confession and his consent to a search were voluntary. | 1 | 1 |
In re International Longshoremen's Ass'ngreen2 sentences1996See also Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981), reh’g denied, 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981); Walker v. Board of Pardons, 803 P.2d 1241 (Utah 1990) (board’s findings disclosed sufficient evidence from which it could have found that Walker committed the offenses). 1996See also Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981), reh’g denied, 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981); Walker v. Board of Pardons, 803 P.2d 1241 (Utah 1990) (board’s findings disclosed sufficient evidence from which it could have found that Walker committed the offenses). | 1 | 1 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commissiongreen1 sentence1996See also Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981), reh’g denied, 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981); Walker v. Board of Pardons, 803 P.2d 1241 (Utah 1990) (board’s findings disclosed sufficient evidence from which it could have found that Walker committed the offenses). | 1 | 1 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commissiongreen2 sentences1996See also Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981), reh’g denied, 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981); Walker v. Board of Pardons, 803 P.2d 1241 (Utah 1990) (board’s findings disclosed sufficient evidence from which it could have found that Walker committed the offenses). 1996See also Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981), reh’g denied, 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981); Walker v. Board of Pardons, 803 P.2d 1241 (Utah 1990) (board’s findings disclosed sufficient evidence from which it could have found that Walker committed the offenses). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lego v. Twomey
green
2 sentences1992Considering the preponderance of the evidence standard that must be met to prove voluntariness, Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 619, 626 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), we conclude in our review that the court’s finding on this point was not erroneous. 1992Considering the preponderance of the evidence standard that must be met to prove voluntariness, Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 619, 626 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), we conclude in our review that the court’s finding on this point was not erroneous. | 2 | 1992–1997 |
State v. Guenther
green
1 sentence2020The New Jersey court adopted the preponderance of the evidence standard because the standard “strikes the right balance, placing an initial burden on the defendant to justify the use of such evidence while not setting an exceedingly high threshold for its admission.” Guenther, 854 A.2d at 324 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ellibee v. Ellibee
green
2 sentences2013The Court held that “[considering the need for prompt relief, and the fact that the preponderance of the evidence standard is adequate in instances of permanent alteration of custody rights, the preponderance of the evidence is certainly a sufficiently demanding standard to protect the due process rights of a respondent in a case of short-term custody restriction.” Id. at 506 , 826 P.2d at 467 . 2013The Court held that “[considering the need for prompt relief, and the fact that the preponderance of the evidence standard is adequate in instances of permanent alteration of custody rights, the preponderance of the evidence is certainly a sufficiently demanding standard to protect the due process rights of a respondent in a case of short-term custody restriction.” Id. at 506 , 826 P.2d at 467 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Matlock
green
2 sentences1997Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 487 , 92 S.Ct. 619, 625-26 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 , 177 n. 14, 94 S.Ct. 988 , 996 n. 14, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). 1997Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 487 , 92 S.Ct. 619, 625-26 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 , 177 n. 14, 94 S.Ct. 988 , 996 n. 14, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Farmers New World Life Insurance Co. v. Bountiful City
green
1 sentence1996See also Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981), reh’g denied, 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981); Walker v. Board of Pardons, 803 P.2d 1241 (Utah 1990) (board’s findings disclosed sufficient evidence from which it could have found that Walker committed the offenses). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Matter of Jenkins
green
2 sentences1993However, instead of the clear and convincing evidence standard “historically required in attorney disbarment and disciplinary actions,” In re Matter of Jenkins, 120 Idaho at 384 , 816 P.2d at 340 , we apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in Clients’ Security Fund actions in accordance with the applicable rule, I.B.C.R. 613(e). 3 C. 1993However, instead of the clear and convincing evidence standard “historically required in attorney disbarment and disciplinary actions,” In re Matter of Jenkins, 120 Idaho at 384 , 816 P.2d at 340 , we apply a preponderance of the evidence standard in Clients’ Security Fund actions in accordance with the applicable rule, I.B.C.R. 613(e). 3 C. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.