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

preponderance of evidence standard in Connecticut

8 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2009 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Correia v. Rowlandgreen
conn · 2003 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See, e.g., Correia v. Rowland, 263 Conn. 453 , 475 n.22, 820 A.2d 1009 (2003) (“[t]he burden of proof under the clear and convincing evidence standard is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the *438 probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist” [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2009See, e.g., Correia v. Rowland, 263 Conn. 453 , 475 n.22, 820 A.2d 1009 (2003) (“[t]he burden of proof under the clear and convincing evidence standard is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the *438 probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist” [internal quotation marks omitted]).

11
Bradley's Fish Co. v. Dudleygreen
conn · 1870 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009The Moores’ deed provided that the property was being transferred subject to the right-of-way appearing on Map No. 423, “to serve Plot No. 1 and Plot No. 2 [which are 8 Runkenhage Road and 12 Runkenhage Road, respectively], as shown on said map; said right of way to be for all lawful purposes, including the easements of public utilities, and to serve as a means of ingress and egress for each of said Plots No. 1 and No. 2 perpetually.” 11 Under the circumstances presented, we decline the defendant’s invitation, raised for the first time on appeal, to overrule approximately 150 years of preceden

11
Pero Building Co. v. Smithgreen
connappct · 1986 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See, Pero Building Co. v. Smith , 6 Conn. App. 180 (1989).

11
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commissiongreen
scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001See also Steadman v. Securities and Exchanged Commission , 450 U.S. 91 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981) (where legislature has not imposed a different standard, absent countervailing constitutional restraints, preponderance of evidence is correct standard).

2001See also Steadman v. Securities and Exchanged Commission , 450 U.S. 91 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981) (where legislature has not imposed a different standard, absent countervailing constitutional restraints, preponderance of evidence is correct standard).

11
Grievance Committee v. Woolfsongreen
connsuperct · 1935 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989See Grievance Committee v. Woolfson, 2 Conn. Sup. 122, 127 (1935).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Public Storage, Inc. v. Eliot Street Ltd. Partnership green
connappct · 1989
1 sentence

2002Public Storage v. Elliot Street, L.P., supra .

12002–2002
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Presnick green
conn · 1990
1 sentence

2001The last issue raised by the plaintiff is that the preponderance of evidence standard set by the Board is erroneous; he contends that the correct standard is that of clear and convincing evidence, citing Statewide Grievance Committee v. Presnick , 215 Conn. 162 (1990), which is the standard applicable to attorney grievance proceedings.

12001–2001
State v. Hodges green
utahctapp · 1990
1 sentence

1994Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 334 , 563 A.2d 414 (1989); Turner v. State, supra, 344; State v. Hodges, supra (analogizing probation conditions to a contract between the state and the court; “[a]s in a contract dispute, proof of breach by the probationer is properly subject to a preponderance of evidence standard”).

11994–1994
Wink v. State green
md · 1989
2 sentences

1994Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 334 , 563 A.2d 414 (1989); Turner v. State, supra, 344; State v. Hodges, supra (analogizing probation conditions to a contract between the state and the court; “[a]s in a contract dispute, proof of breach by the probationer is properly subject to a preponderance of evidence standard”).

1994Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 334 , 563 A.2d 414 (1989); Turner v. State, supra, 344; State v. Hodges, supra (analogizing probation conditions to a contract between the state and the court; “[a]s in a contract dispute, proof of breach by the probationer is properly subject to a preponderance of evidence standard”).

11994–1994
Pulaski v. Ledwith green
conn · 1986
1 sentence

1988Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 5 Conn. App. 579, 585 , 501 A.2d 1214 (1985), cert. denied, 198 Conn. 803 , 503 A.2d 172 (1986).

11988–1988
Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. green
conn · 1986
1 sentence

1988Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 5 Conn. App. 579, 585 , 501 A.2d 1214 (1985), cert. denied, 198 Conn. 803 , 503 A.2d 172 (1986).

11988–1988
Verrastro v. Middlesex Insurance green
conn · 1988
2 sentences

1988Co., 207 Conn. 179,183 , 540 A.2d 693 (1988).

1988Co., 207 Conn. 179,183 , 540 A.2d 693 (1988).

11988–1988
Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. green
connappct · 1985
2 sentences

1988Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 5 Conn. App. 579, 585 , 501 A.2d 1214 (1985), cert. denied, 198 Conn. 803 , 503 A.2d 172 (1986).

1988Souper Spud, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 5 Conn. App. 579, 585 , 501 A.2d 1214 (1985), cert. denied, 198 Conn. 803 , 503 A.2d 172 (1986).

11988–1988

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