Also known as: more probable than not · preponderance of the evidence · preponderance standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of proof requiring the factfinder to determine that a contested fact is more likely than not to be true.
After Dorothy's plane crash, Hannah petitions the probate court to bar Catherine from inheriting under the will. The court weighs evidence of pre-flight modifications and Catherine's comments about leadership against the possibility of accident. Finding the facts more probably true than not true that Catherine intentionally caused the death, the court declares Catherine a slayer and denies her the shares.
The prosecution offers Steve's earlier nonprofit payments to show motive and plan in the current embezzlement case. The trial court determines there is sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude the prior acts occurred, admits the evidence after balancing prejudice, and instructs the jury without requiring a preliminary finding by the more probably true than not true standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Helen's and Ruby's competing claims create ambiguity in the coach's bequest of shares to the player who captained his toughest team. The probate court reviews extrinsic evidence of the coach's statements and facility associations. Determining the donor's intention more probably true than not true favors Helen, the court distributes the shares to her.
Lila sues Dr. Vega after Martin's assault in the parking garage. She presents evidence that Dr. Vega knew of the specific threat yet took no action. The jury finds it more probably true than not true that Dr. Vega's failure to warn proximately caused Lila's injuries and awards damages.
Davis raises an insanity defense at his criminal trial. The prosecution must prove every element of the offense more probably true than not true while Davis bears the burden of establishing the defense by the same civil standard under the applicable rule.
Plaintiffs offer expert opinions that Bendectin caused birth defects. The district court evaluates whether the methodology is reliable enough that the causation conclusion is more probably true than not true. Finding the experts' testimony insufficient under that standard, the court excludes the evidence.
The court applies the more probably true than not true standard. A final criminal conviction for the felonious and intentional killing conclusively establishes slayer status in the civil proceeding.
Supporting sources
The trial court need not make a preliminary finding that the government proved the prior act by that standard. The evidence is admissible if there is sufficient proof from which the jury could reasonably find the act occurred and the probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
The donor's intention controls to the extent it is established under the more probably true than not true standard. Extrinsic evidence may be considered along with the text to determine that intention.
Supporting sources
…that "[a]ny determination at the conclusion of [an adjudicatory] hearing that a [juvenile] did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence."[^maj-2] During a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of 18 months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment…