Punitive damages are warranted against (defendant) if you find by clear and convincing evidence
that (managing agent, primary owner, or other person whose conduct may warrant punitive damages without proof of a superior's fault) [was] [were] personally guilty of [intentional misconduct] [or] [gross negligence], which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant).
Gubser then sought a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, asking the court to declare that the IRS must prove willfulness by clear and convincing evidence
. The court, however, granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint on standing grounds, holding that Gubser's injury could not be redressed by a declaratory judgment, which would not bind the IRS from assessing a penalty [Gubser v.
While the scope of subject matter eligible for protection for prior users has changed, the requirement that the defense's elements be established by clear and convincing evidence
has been proved by clear and convincing evidence
." (15) But at the
(17) Because the S4 software was never submitted to the PTO examiner, Microsoft challenged i4i's proposed jury instruction that Microsoft was required to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence
. (18) Basing its challenge on dicta in both KSR International Co.
those penalties in their totality are more than the equivalent of punitive damages, which by statute must be proved by clear and convincing evidence
It also allows the presumption to be overcome if "[t]here is clear and convincing evidence
that the incompetent person, when competent, gave express and informed consent to withdrawing or withholding nutrition or hydration in the applicable circumstances." This conforms to the standard mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, but takes steps to ensure that the evidence of the patient's oral wishes is indeed "reliable."
[section] 1983 action to offer clear and convincing evidence
of a public official's unconstitutional motive in order to defeat the defendant's request for summary judgment.
The current standard, which requires the state to show by "clear and convincing evidence
" that property was the proceeds of a criminal endeavor before seizing it, would be replaced with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, which would be tougher for prosecutors to meet.
In civil actions under federal law, the preponderance of the evidence standard generally is used, except certain situations that require clear and convincing evidence
. The U.S.
Oklahoma,(1) the United States Supreme Court examined whether a state could require a defendant to prove his incompetence to stand trial by clear and convincing evidence
.(2) Though the Court had already upheld one state statute that required a defendant to prove his incompetence by a "preponderance of the evidence,"(3) Cooper held that the heightened "clear and convincing evidence
" standard was an impermissible violation of a defendant's fundamental right under the Due Process Clause not to be tried while incompetent because it greatly increased the potential for an erroneous decision.(4) The Court relied on a two-part argument, first looking at historical precedent and then examining whether Oklahoma's rule exhibited "fundamental fairness in practice."(5)
Rather than requiring an individual to show that he or she can benefit in terms of employability in order to qualify for services, the new law presumes that an individual can benefit in terms of employment outcome from vocational rehabilitation services unless the agency shows by clear and convincing evidence
that the individual is incapable of benefiting (1992 Amendments, 123(a)).