Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2007 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gandhi v. State Medical Examining Boardgreen2 sentences2007Exam’rs, 329 S.C. 371 , 496 S.E.2d 17, 19-20 (1998); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295, 298-300 (Ct.App.1992). [¶24] In Grimm, 635 A.2d at 461-62 , the New Hampshire Supreme Court held there was no due process or equal protection violation in the use of the preponderance of evidence standard of proof for disciplinary proceedings against a psychologist. 2007Exam’rs, 329 S.C. 371 , 496 S.E.2d 17, 19-20 (1998); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295, 298-300 (Ct.App.1992). [¶24] In Grimm, 635 A.2d at 461-62 , the New Hampshire Supreme Court held there was no due process or equal protection violation in the use of the preponderance of evidence standard of proof for disciplinary proceedings against a psychologist. | 3 | 3 |
Anonymous v. State Board of Medical Examinersgreen2 sentences2007Exam’rs, 329 S.C. 371 , 496 S.E.2d 17, 19-20 (1998); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295, 298-300 (Ct.App.1992). [¶24] In Grimm, 635 A.2d at 461-62 , the New Hampshire Supreme Court held there was no due process or equal protection violation in the use of the preponderance of evidence standard of proof for disciplinary proceedings against a psychologist. 2007Exam’rs, 329 S.C. 371 , 496 S.E.2d 17, 19-20 (1998); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295, 298-300 (Ct.App.1992). [¶24] In Grimm, 635 A.2d at 461-62 , the New Hampshire Supreme Court held there was no due process or equal protection violation in the use of the preponderance of evidence standard of proof for disciplinary proceedings against a psychologist. | 3 | 3 |
In Re the Revocation of the License of Polkgreen2 sentences2007See Polk, 449 A.2d at 17 ; Grimm, 635 A.2d at 462 . [¶ 31] The legislature has chosen the preponderance of evidence standard for physician discipline and this Court, the governing body for attorneys, has chosen the clear and convincing standard for attorney discipline. 2007See Polk, 449 A.2d at 17 ; Grimm, 635 A.2d at 462 . [¶31] The legislature has chosen the preponderance of evidence standard for physician discipline and this Court, the governing body for attorneys, has chosen the clear and convincing standard for attorney discipline. | 3 | 3 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2007He claims the preponderance of evidence standard violates minimum due process requirements because “a revocation proceeding potentially takes away a private property interest, prohibits a doctor from practicing his profession, and subjects a doctor to public embarrassment.” [¶ 16] For due process purposes, the function of a standard of proof is to “ ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks [the factfinder] should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ ” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 2007He claims the preponderance of evidence standard violates minimum due process requirements because “a revocation proceeding potentially takes away a private property interest, prohibits a doctor from practicing his profession, and subjects a doctor to public embarrassment.” [¶ 16] For due process purposes, the function of a standard of proof is to “ ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks [the factfinder] should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ ” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , | 3 | 3 |
In Re WINSHIPgreen2 sentences2007He claims the preponderance of evidence standard violates minimum due process requirements because “a revocation proceeding potentially takes away a private property interest, prohibits a doctor from practicing his profession, and subjects a doctor to public embarrassment.” [¶ 16] For due process purposes, the function of a standard of proof is to “ ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks [the factfinder] should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ ” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 2007He claims the preponderance of evidence standard violates minimum due process requirements because “a revocation proceeding potentially takes away a private property interest, prohibits a doctor from practicing his profession, and subjects a doctor to public embarrassment.” [¶ 16] For due process purposes, the function of a standard of proof is to “ ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks [the factfinder] should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’ ” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , | 1 | 3 |
Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkingreen1 sentence1981We have defined the preponderance of the evidence as “evidence more worthy of belief,” or “the greater weight of the evidence,” or “testimony that brings the greater conviction of truth.” See Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214, 219 (N.D. 1979). *329 Gramling asserts that the Bureau gave undue weight to a statement made by him that he could make more money on disability benefits than by working. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Painter v. Abels
green
2 sentences2007Id. [¶ 23] Other courts have applied the Mathews framework and held that due process is satisfied by the preponderance of evidence standard for medical disciplinary proceedings. 2007Id. [If 23] Other courts have applied the Mathews framework and held that due process is satisfied by the preponderance of evidence standard for medical disciplinary proceedings. | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Sjostrand v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences2007Bureau, 2002 ND 125, ¶ 24 , 649 N.W.2d 537 (stating N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46 provides both a standard of review and an eviden-tiary standard of' proof for agency decisions). 1 [¶ 15] Dr. Hsu argues the preponderance of evidence standard violates the due process provisions of the federal and state constitutions under the three-prong test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). 2007Bureau, 2002 ND 125, ¶ 24 , 649 N.W.2d 537 (stating N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46 provides both a standard of review and an eviden-tiary standard of' proof for agency decisions). 1 [¶ 15] Dr. Hsu argues the preponderance of evidence standard violates the due process provisions of the federal and state constitutions under the three-prong test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). | 3 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Leppert
green
2 sentences2007He argues it is wrong to impose one standard on the medical profession and a higher standard on attorneys. [¶ 29] In State v. Leppert, 2003 ND 15, ¶¶ 7-8 , 656 N.W.2d 718 , we recently outlined our standards for equal protection challenges: The equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions do not prohibit legislative classifications or require identical treatment of different groups of people. 2007He argues it is wrong to impose one standard on the medical profession and a higher standard on attorneys. [¶ 29] In State v. Leppert, 2003 ND 15, ¶¶ 7-8 , 656 N.W.2d 718 , we recently outlined our standards for equal protection challenges: The equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions do not prohibit legislative classifications or require identical treatment of different groups of people. | 3 | 2007–2007 |
In re Grimm
green
2 sentences2007A.2d at 17; Grimm, 635 A.2d at 462 . [¶ 31] The legislature has chosen the preponderance of evidence standard for physician discipline and this Court, the governing body for attorneys, has chosen the clear and convincing standard for attorney discipline. 2007Exam’rs, 329 S.C. 371 , 496 S.E.2d 17, 19-20 (1998); Gandhi v. Medical Examining Bd., 168 Wis.2d 299 , 483 N.W.2d 295, 298-300 (Ct.App.1992). [¶24] In Grimm, 635 A.2d at 461-62 , the New Hampshire Supreme Court held there was no due process or equal protection violation in the use of the preponderance of evidence standard of proof for disciplinary proceedings against a psychologist. | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2007Bureau, 2002 ND 125, ¶ 24 , 649 N.W.2d 537 (stating N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46 provides both a standard of review and an eviden-tiary standard of' proof for agency decisions). 1 [¶ 15] Dr. Hsu argues the preponderance of evidence standard violates the due process provisions of the federal and state constitutions under the three-prong test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). 2007Bureau, 2002 ND 125, ¶ 24 , 649 N.W.2d 537 (stating N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46 provides both a standard of review and an eviden-tiary standard of' proof for agency decisions). 1 [¶ 15] Dr. Hsu argues the preponderance of evidence standard violates the due process provisions of the federal and state constitutions under the three-prong test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). | 3 | 2007–2007 |
Sletten v. Briggs
green
1 sentence1998Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
O'Brien v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
neutral
2 sentences1983O’Brien v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 222 N.W.2d 379 (N.D.1974). 1983O'Brien v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 222 N.W.2d 379 (N.D.1974). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Geo. E. Haggart, Inc. v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
green
1 sentence1981Bur., 171 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1969), and its progeny has been replaced by legislative amendment of Section 28-32-19, N.D.C.C., in 1977, providing for the preponderance of evidence rule. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Steele v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1979In Steele, supra 273 N.W.2d at 697 , this court considered the issue of which standard of review was to be applied on appeal where the substantial evidence standard was in effect when the Bureau made its initial decision, but the preponderance of evidence standard was in effect when the ease was appealed to the Supreme Court. 1979In Steele, supra 273 N.W.2d at 697 , this court considered the issue of which standard of review was to be applied on appeal where the substantial evidence standard was in effect when the Bureau made its initial decision, but the preponderance of evidence standard was in effect when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.
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.