preponderance of the evidence standard in Louisiana

64 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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)

Case	Followed	Cited
Mott v. Babin Motors, Inc.green lactapp · 1984 · cited in 5 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1992–2008 2 sentences 2008Mott v. Babin Motors, Inc., 451 So.2d 632, 637 (La. 1996Mott v. Babin Motors, Inc., 451 So.2d 632, 637 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984); Bradley v. Hunter, 413 So.2d 674 , 676 n. 3 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982), writ denied, 415 So.2d 952 (La.1982).	5	5
State v. Dauzartgreen lactapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006 2 sentences 2006State v. Dauzart, 844 So.2d at 165 . 2005See State v. Dauzart, 02-1187 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/25/03) , 844 So.2d 159, 165 .	1	2
State v. Alemangreen lactapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003 2 sentences 2003State v. Aleman, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise, 759 So.2d at 893 ; The Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to address the question of how LSA-C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence. 2002See, State v. Aleman , 01-743 at p. 9, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise , 99-734, p. 13, 759 So.2d at 893 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . [3] The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, has consistently used the clear and convincing standard of proof, and has declined to address the question of how C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence.	1	2
Talbot v. Talbotgreen la · 2003 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018See Talbot v. Talbot , 03-814 (La. 12/12/03), 864 So.2d 590 .	1	1
Charles v. South Cent. Industriesgreen la · 1996 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016R.S. 23:1021(7); see also Charles v. South Central Industries, 96-0883, p. 6 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So.2d 706, 709 (admonishing that " 'reviewing courts must analyze claimed disability caused by mental conditions with utmost caution in view of the nebulous characteristics of mental conditions and the possibility of symptoms being easily ^feigned.” ”) Because we find that even under a preponderance of the evidence standard Mr. Leidelmeijen failed to meet his burden of proof, we do not find it necessary to address whether the clear and convincing standard applies here. .	1	1
State v. Dickersongreen lactapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002	1	1
State v. 77,014.00 DOLLARSgreen lactapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
State v. Mooregreen lactapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
State v. Billiotgreen la · 1996 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1
State v. Billiotgreen lactapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1
Marziale v. Maneygreen la · 1988 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993	1	1
Duroncelet v. Doleygreen lactapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993	1	1
McLean v. Huntergreen lactapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Lefort v. Gulf States Asphalt Co.green la · 1987 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
McLean v. Huntergreen la · 1986 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Prestenbach v. Sentry Ins. Co.green la · 1976 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (64)

Case	Cited	Years
State ex rel. D.H.L. green lactapp · 2008 2 sentences 2019D.H.L. , 08-39, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/30/08), 981 So.2d 906 , 910 (footnotes omitted), we discussed the State's burden of proof and our standard of review in connection with termination of parental rights proceedings as follows: Our supreme court has recognized that the gravity of terminating parental rights requires our courts to impose a stricter standard of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard; rather, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the statutory grounds contained in La.Ch.Code art. 1015 in order to terminate a parent's rights. 2019D.H.L. , 08-39, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/30/08), 981 So.2d 906 , 910 (footnotes omitted), we discussed the State's burden of proof and our standard of review in connection with termination of parental rights proceedings as follows: Our supreme court has recognized that the gravity of terminating parental rights requires our courts to impose a stricter standard of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard; rather, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence at least one of the statutory grounds contained in La.Ch.Code art. 1015 in order to terminate a parent's rights.	4	2019–2019
Bradley v. Hunter green lactapp · 1982 2 sentences 1996Mott v. Babin Motors, Inc., 451 So.2d 632, 637 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984); Bradley v. Hunter, 413 So.2d 674 , 676 n. 3 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982), writ denied, 415 So.2d 952 (La.1982). 1995Mott v. Babin Motors, Inc., 451 So.2d 632, 637 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984); Bradley v. Hunter, 413 So.2d 674 , 676 n. 3 (La.	4	1992–1996
State v. Hernandez green la · 1999 2 sentences 2002See: State v. Dickerson, 00-951 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/2/00), 772 So.2d 845, 853, fn. 3 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . 2002See, State v. Aleman , 01-743 at p. 9, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise , 99-734, p. 13, 759 So.2d at 893 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . [3] The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, has consistently used the clear and convincing standard of proof, and has declined to address the question of how C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence.	3	2000–2002
State v. Hernandez green lactapp · 1999 2 sentences 2002See: State v. Dickerson, 00-951 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/2/00), 772 So.2d 845, 853, fn. 3 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . 2002See, State v. Aleman , 01-743 at p. 9, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise , 99-734, p. 13, 759 So.2d at 893 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . [3] The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, has consistently used the clear and convincing standard of proof, and has declined to address the question of how C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence.	3	2000–2002
Bradley v. Hunter green la · 1982 2 sentences 1996Mott v. Babin Motors, Inc., 451 So.2d 632, 637 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984); Bradley v. Hunter, 413 So.2d 674 , 676 n. 3 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982), writ denied, 415 So.2d 952 (La.1982). 1994Mott v. Babin Motors, Inc., 451 So.2d 632, 637 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984); Bradley v. Hunter, 413 So.2d 674 , 676 n. 3 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982), writ denied, 415 So.2d 952 (La.1982).	3	1992–1996
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 2017“Although an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient to justify a stop, Terry [v. Ohio,] 392 U.S. 1 ] 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), 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.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). 2017“Although an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient to justify a stop, Terry [v. Ohio,] 392 U.S. 1 ] 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), 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.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002).	2	2015–2017
State v. Cash green lactapp · 2003 2 sentences 2016Additionally, this court has held that “clear and convincing evidence is not required; instead, a preponderance of the evidence standard applies.” State v. Carmouche, 14-215, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/30/14), 145 So.3d 1101, 1103-04 , writ denied, 14-1819 (La. 4/2/15), 176 So.3d 1031 (citing Cash, 861 So.2d 851 ). 2014State v. Cash, 03-858 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/03) , 861 So.2d 851 , writ denied, 04-27 (La.4/30/04), 872 So.2d 472 , and writ denied, 04-232 (La.5/7/04), 872 So.2d 1080 .	2	2014–2016
Huddleston v. United States green scotus · 1988 2 sentences 2014The supreme court, however, has not yet spoken as to the appropriate standard: This court has not yet addressed the extent to which Article 1104 and the burden of proof required by the federal rules, as interpreted in Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 , 108 S.Ct. 1496 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), has affected the burden of proof required for the admissibility of other crimes evidence. 2014The supreme court, however, has not yet spoken as to the appropriate standard: This court has not yet addressed the extent to which Article 1104 and the burden of proof required by the federal rules, as interpreted in Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 , 108 S.Ct. 1496 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), has affected the burden of proof required for the admissibility of other crimes evidence.	2	2013–2014
State v. Maise green lactapp · 2000 2 sentences 2003State v. Aleman, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise, 759 So.2d at 893 ; The Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to address the question of how LSA-C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence. 2002See, State v. Aleman , 01-743 at p. 9, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise , 99-734, p. 13, 759 So.2d at 893 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . [3] The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, has consistently used the clear and convincing standard of proof, and has declined to address the question of how C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence.	2	2002–2003
State v. Guidroz green lactapp · 1998 2 sentences 1999State v. Guidroz, 98-377 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/14/98) , 721 So.2d 480 , writ denied, 98-2874 (La.2/26/99), ___ So.2d ___, 1999 WL 123346 ; State v. Pardon, 97-248 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/15/97) , 703 So.2d 50 , writ denied, 97-2892 (La.3/20/98), 715 So.2d 1207 . 1999State v. Guidroz, 98-377 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/14/98) , 721 So.2d 480 ; State v. Pardon, 97-248 (La.	2	1999–1999
State v. Wesley green la · 1996 2 sentences 1999State v. Crawford, 95-1352 (La.App. 3rd Cir.4/3/96), 672 So.2d 197 , writ denied 96-1126 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1379 . 1998State v. Crawford, 95-1352 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/96) , 672 So.2d 197 , writ denied 96-1126 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1379 .	2	1998–1999
State v. Crawford green lactapp · 1996 2 sentences 1999State v. Crawford, 95-1352 (La.App. 3rd Cir.4/3/96), 672 So.2d 197 , writ denied 96-1126 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1379 . 1998State v. Crawford, 95-1352 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/96) , 672 So.2d 197 , writ denied 96-1126 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1379 .	2	1998–1999
United States v. Richard Mastrangelo green ca2 · 1982 2 sentences 1990Noting disagreement among the federal circuits on this issue, we chose the approach adopted by the U.S. Second Circuit in U.S. v. Mastrangelo, supra. Defendant argues that the trial court failed to address the issue of whether the state knew or should have known of the evidence sought to be introduced at the remand hearing and to make a determination of whether the state waived its right to address the waiver issue on remand. 1989However the law permits this testimony for that limited purpose and that purpose alone. [*] As we noted earlier in this opinion, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Mastrangelo, supra , used a preponderance of the evidence standard.	2	1989–1990
Semien v. PPG Industries, Inc. green lactapp · 1982 2 sentences 1987La.C.C.P. art. 1810; Semien v. PPG Industries, Inc., 413 So.2d 956 (La.App. 3 Cir.1982). 1985In Semien v. PPG Industries, Inc., 413 So.2d 956 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982), this court noted that in cases tried before a judge alone, as in the present case, the rule of Campbell is inappropriate.	2	1985–1987
United States v. Arvizu green scotus · 2002 2 sentences 2017“Although an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient to justify a stop, Terry [v. Ohio,] 392 U.S. 1 ] 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), 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.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). 2017“Although an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘hunch’ is insufficient to justify a stop, Terry [v. Ohio,] 392 U.S. 1 ] 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), 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.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002).	1	2017–2017
Hollingsworth v. Steven Garr Logging neutral lactapp · 2013 1 sentence 2016Gilliam, supra; Hollingsworth v. Steven Garr Logging, 47,884 (La.App.2d Cir.2/27/13), 110 So.3d 1219 .	1	2016–2016
State v. Carmouche neutral lactapp · 2014 1 sentence 2016Additionally, this court has held that “clear and convincing evidence is not required; instead, a preponderance of the evidence standard applies.” State v. Carmouche, 14-215, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/30/14), 145 So.3d 1101, 1103-04 , writ denied, 14-1819 (La. 4/2/15), 176 So.3d 1031 (citing Cash, 861 So.2d 851 ).	1	2016–2016
State v. Vail neutral lactapp · 2014 1 sentence 2016However, in Vail, 150 So.3d 576 , this court held it was the State’s burden to prove that a defendant committed the other crimes, wrongs, or acts by clear and \| aaconvincing evidence.	1	2016–2016
State v. Chisolm green la · 2015 1 sentence 2016Additionally, this court has held that “clear and convincing evidence is not required; instead, a preponderance of the evidence standard applies.” State v. Carmouche, 14-215, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/30/14), 145 So.3d 1101, 1103-04 , writ denied, 14-1819 (La. 4/2/15), 176 So.3d 1031 (citing Cash, 861 So.2d 851 ).	1	2016–2016
United States v. Sokolow green scotus · 1989 1 sentence 2015Although an officer’s reliance on a mere “ ‘hunch’ ” is insufficient to justify a stop, Terry, supra, at 27 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 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, Sokolow, supra, at 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 .	1	2015–2015
State v. Cash green la · 2004 1 sentence 2014State v. Cash, 03-858 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/03) , 861 So.2d 851 , writ denied, 04-27 (La.4/30/04), 872 So.2d 472 , and writ denied, 04-232 (La.5/7/04), 872 So.2d 1080 .	1	2014–2014
State v. Cash green la · 2004 1 sentence 2014State v. Cash, 03-858 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/03) , 861 So.2d 851 , writ denied, 04-27 (La.4/30/04), 872 So.2d 472 , and writ denied, 04-232 (La.5/7/04), 872 So.2d 1080 .	1	2014–2014
State v. Rose green la · 2007 1 sentence 2014State v. Rose, 06-402, p. 12 (La.2/22/07), 949 So.2d 1236 , 1243 n. 3.	1	2014–2014
Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dardar green la · 2014 1 sentence 2014Church, supra. Under the new law, a \| inclaimant seeking judicial review of the Medical Director’s decision must prove the necessity of the sought-after medical treatment by clear and convincing evidence.	1	2014–2014
Nelson v. Roadway Exp., Inc. green la · 1991	1	2013–2013
Phillips v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. United green lactapp · 2006 1 sentence 2013It is clear from a plain reading of the law that these additional elements set forth in Bruno are but elements that need to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. “[T]here is no doubt that the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.” Phillips v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. United, 06-323, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/27/06), 939 So.2d 673, 677 .	1	2013–2013
United States v. Kerry Neil Enjady green ca10 · 1998	1	2011–2011
State v. Clark green la · 1976	1	2008–2008
Hall v. Folger Coffee Co. green la · 2004	1	2007–2007
Joseph v. Entergy neutral lactapp · 2005	1	2007–2007
Brooks-Bey v. Kupec green scotus · 2001	1	2005–2005
Cofield v. United States green scotus · 2001	1	2005–2005
Searcy v. Illinois green scotus · 2001	1	2005–2005
United States v. Keenan Kester Cofield green ca6 · 2000	1	2005–2005
United States v. Dawn Marie Bujak green ca6 · 2003	1	2005–2005
Bruno v. Harbert Intern. Inc. green la · 1992	1	2003–2003
Roper v. Dailey green la · 1981	1	2003–2003
United States v. Robinson green ca1 · 2001	1	2002–2002
United States v. Lopez-Lopez green ca1 · 2002	1	2002–2002
State v. James neutral lactapp · 2000	1	2001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:438 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 3 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 46:1844 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30.1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:43.1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:64 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1142 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1203 (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 474 (1939–2026) CA 349 (1967–2026) PA 323 (1982–2026) TN 300 (1980–2026) IL 168 (1967–2026) MI 137 (1980–2026) KY 132 (1978–2026) WA 128 (1971–2026) GA 126 (1983–2026) VA 124 (1922–2025) OH 117 (1984–2026) NC 91 (1982–2026) CO 88 (1982–2026) MD 87 (1971–2026) NY 87 (1973–2026) SC 83 (1909–2026) NJ 82 (1975–2026) FL 76 (1963–2026) LA 64 (1977–2019) CT 64 (1975–2026) WV 59 (1982–2026) UT 48 (1981–2025) MN 47 (1973–2026) KS 46 (1993–2026) DC 45 (1970–2026) AZ 39 (1981–2025) WY 39 (1979–2026) AK 36 (1977–2025) MA 36 (1978–2025) MO 36 (1993–2025) IN 36 (1980–2026) DE 34 (1972–2026) OR 31 (1975–2024) ME 29 (1974–2023) NV 28 (1980–2025) IA 28 (1980–2025) NM 28 (1978–2023) WI 27 (1981–2025) HI 27 (1989–2026) SD 23 (1975–2026) VT 22 (1983–2021) ND 18 (1981–2023) NH 18 (1982–2024) OK 17 (1976–2024) AL 16 (1992–2017) MS 16 (1988–2026) ID 13 (1992–2022) AR 11 (1955–2024) NE 10 (1985–2023) 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