preponderance of the evidence standard in West Virginia

2023Va. 268 , 314 S.E.2d 859 (“Where there is evidence reflecting that a driver was operating a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway, exhibited symptoms of intoxication, and had consumed alcoholic beverages, this is sufficient proof under a preponderance of the evidence standard to warrant the administrative revocation of his driver’s license for driving under the influence of alcohol.”). 10 McCusker] initially arrived at the scene [Mr. Gaither] had purportedly been injured but had walked away from the accident.

2023The OAH cited Syllabus point 2 of Albrecht v. State in support of its decision to uphold Mr. Casto’s license revocation: Where there is evidence reflecting that a driver was operating a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway, exhibited symptoms of intoxication, and had consumed alcoholic beverages, this is sufficient proof under a preponderance of the evidence standard to warrant the administrative revocation of his driver’s license for driving under the influence of alcohol. 173 W.

2026Va. 417, 428, 427 , 752 S.E.2d 571, 581 (2013).5 Here, the circuit court emphasized that the standard of clear and convincing evidence supporting a punitive damages claim differed from the preponderance of the evidence standard required to support claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

2026Va. 417, 428, 427 , 752 S.E.2d 571, 581 (2013).5 Here, the circuit court emphasized that the standard of clear and convincing evidence supporting a punitive damages claim differed from the preponderance of the evidence standard required to support claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

2026Va. 538, 546 , 759 S.E.2d 769, 777 (2014) (highlighting that the preponderance of the evidence standard is a lesser burden of proof than the clear and convincing evidence standard).3 Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the circuit court erred in denying her second motion for reconsideration as the court failed to consider newly discovered evidence, that being the security footage video.

2026Va. 538, 546 , 759 S.E.2d 769, 777 (2014) (highlighting that the preponderance of the evidence standard is a lesser burden of proof than the clear and convincing evidence standard).3 Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the circuit court erred in denying her second motion for reconsideration as the court failed to consider newly discovered evidence, that being the security footage video.

2010See Cady, infra. 11 . "'Where there is evidence reflecting that a driver was operating a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway, exhibited symptoms of intoxication, and had consumed alcoholic beverages, this is sufficient proof under a preponderance of the evidence standard to warrant the administrative revocation of his driver’s license for driving under the influence of alcohol.’ Syllabus Point 2, Albrecht v. State, 173 W.Va. 268 , 314 S.E.2d 859 (1984).’’ Syllabus Point 2, Carte v. Cline, 200 W.Va. 162 , 488 S.E.2d 437 (1997). 12 .

2010See Cady, infra. 11 . "'Where there is evidence reflecting that a driver was operating a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway, exhibited symptoms of intoxication, and had consumed alcoholic beverages, this is sufficient proof under a preponderance of the evidence standard to warrant the administrative revocation of his driver’s license for driving under the influence of alcohol.’ Syllabus Point 2, Albrecht v. State, 173 W.Va. 268 , 314 S.E.2d 859 (1984).’’ Syllabus Point 2, Carte v. Cline, 200 W.Va. 162 , 488 S.E.2d 437 (1997). 12 .

2021Va. at 381 , 633 S.E.2d at 326 (citing Davis, 547 U.S. at 833 (stating that “federal courts using Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) . . . have generally held the Government to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard . . . .

2006Davis , 547 U.S. at-- — , 126 S.Ct. 2266 (Slip Op. at 18-19).

2025Va. 225 , 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973) (“The standard of proof required to support a court order limiting or terminating parental rights to the custody of minor children is clear, cogent and convincing proof.”). 13 taking private property by adverse possession.28 Less demanding than that is proof by a preponderance of the evidence, the general standard used in civil cases,29 which means “more likely than not.”30 Finally, the probable cause standard requires even less than a preponderance of the evidence standard.

2023Va. at 750 , 391 S.E.2d at 900 (internal quotations and citations omitted).While the OAH did not consider the negative blood test results for the reason it gave, 4 the OAH found petitioner DUI because (a) the evidence showing that petitioner consumed controlled substances and exhibited symptoms of intoxication constituted sufficient proof of DUI pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard utilized in administrative revocation proceedings; 5 and (b) there was no requirement that a chemical sobriety test show the presence of controlled substances in petitioner’s system.

2021See also Campbell v. Boston Scientific Corp., 882 F.3d 70, 81 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding that “a correct statement of West Virginia [punitive damages] law at the time of trial” was that “[v]arious trial courts in West Virginia had applied the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals had affirmed such decisions”).

2021See id.

2013Smith v. Scott, 167 W.Va. 231, 233 , 280 S.E.2d 811, 813 (1981) (“The term ‘preponderance of the evidence’ does not refer exclusively to the quantity of testimony but to the quality of that testimony as well.”).6 The first assignment of error raised by the DOH alleges that the circuit court, in affirming the Administrative Law Judge, incorrectly required the DOH to present direct evidence to prove that Litten was the offending employee, thereby holding the DOH to a higher standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence standard.

2013Smith v. Scott, 167 W.Va. 231, 233 , 280 S.E.2d 811, 813 (1981) (“The term ‘preponderance of the evidence’ does not refer exclusively to the quantity of testimony but to the quality of that testimony as well.”). 6 The first assignment of error raised by the DOH alleges that the circuit court, in affirming the Administrative Law Judge, incorrectly required the DOH to present direct evidence to prove that Litten was the offending employee, thereby holding the DOH to a higher standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence standard.

2013Smith v. Scott, 167 W.Va. 231, 233 , 280 S.E.2d 811, 813 (1981) (“The term ‘preponderance of the evidence’ does not refer exclusively to the quantity of testimony but to the quality of that testimony as well.”).6 The first assignment of error raised by the DOH alleges that the circuit court, in affirming the Administrative Law Judge, incorrectly required the DOH to present direct evidence to prove that Litten was the offending employee, thereby holding the DOH to a higher standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence standard.

2013Smith v. Scott, 167 W.Va. 231, 233 , 280 S.E.2d 811, 813 (1981) (“The term ‘preponderance of the evidence’ does not refer exclusively to the quantity of testimony but to the quality of that testimony as well.”). 6 The first assignment of error raised by the DOH alleges that the circuit court, in affirming the Administrative Law Judge, incorrectly required the DOH to present direct evidence to prove that Litten was the offending employee, thereby holding the DOH to a higher standard of proof than a preponderance of the evidence standard.

2004As mentioned above, the failure of the high court to quantify in Zolin the amount of proof required at either the threshold stage or during the actual in camera review has resulted in a scenario where some courts apply a preponderance of the evidence standard; some courts require clear and convincing evidence; and yet others view it akin to a probable cause hearing. 10 See Medical As surance, 213 W.Va. at 477-78 , 583 S.E.2d at 100-101 (Davis, J., concurring) (delineating divergence of authority on evidentiary standard required to establish application of crime-fraud exception including prepon

2004As mentioned above, the failure of the high court to quantify in Zolin the amount of proof required at either the threshold stage or during the actual in camera review has resulted in a scenario where some courts apply a preponderance of the evidence standard; some courts require clear and convincing evidence; and yet others view it akin to a probable cause hearing. [10] See Medical Assurance, 213 W.Va. at 477-78 , 583 S.E.2d at *47 100-101 (Davis, J., concurring) (delineating divergence of authority on evidentiary standard required to establish application of crime-fraud exception including p

2003See American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (preponderance of the evidence standard); Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719, 727 (Ky.2002); (same) Purcell v. District Attorney, 424 Mass. 109 , 676 N.E.2d 436, 439 (1997) (same). *101 Federal courts employ the prima facie evidence standard, but utilize a variety of different terminology to describe that standard of proof.

2003See American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (preponderance of the evidence standard); Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719, 727 (Ky.2002); (same) Purcell v. District Attorney, 424 Mass. 109 , 676 N.E.2d 436, 439 (1997) (same). *101 Federal courts employ the prima facie evidence standard, but utilize a variety of different terminology to describe that standard of proof.

2003See American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (preponderance of the evidence standard); Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719, 727 (Ky.2002); (same) Purcell v. District Attorney, 424 Mass. 109 , 676 N.E.2d 436, 439 (1997) (same). *101 Federal courts employ the prima facie evidence standard, but utilize a variety of different terminology to describe that standard of proof.

2003See American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (preponderance of the evidence standard); Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719, 727 (Ky.2002); (same) Purcell v. District Attorney, 424 Mass. 109 , 676 N.E.2d 436, 439 (1997) (same).

2003See American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (preponderance of the evidence standard); Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719, 727 (Ky.2002); (same) Purcell v. District Attorney, 424 Mass. 109 , 676 N.E.2d 436, 439 (1997) (same). *101 Federal courts employ the prima facie evidence standard, but utilize a variety of different terminology to describe that standard of proof.

2003See American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (preponderance of the evidence standard); Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719, 727 (Ky.2002); (same) Purcell v. District Attorney, 424 Mass. 109 , 676 N.E.2d 436, 439 (1997) (same).

2002See Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. at 2509 .

2002See Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. at 2509 .