Also known as: preponderance of the proof · preponderance of the evidence · preponderance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of proof requiring the party bearing the burden to establish that a contested fact is more likely true than not.
After Dorothy's plane crash, Hannah petitioned the probate court to bar Catherine from inheriting under the will. The court weighed the pre-flight modifications, Catherine's leadership comments, and the prior conviction. Finding it more probable than not that Catherine intentionally caused the death, the court applied the preponderance standard and denied Catherine any benefit.
The prosecution sought to introduce Steve's earlier consulting payments to show motive and absence of mistake in the current embezzlement case. The court examined the invoices and board minutes under the Rule 104(b) standard. Because the jury could reasonably find the prior acts occurred, the evidence was admitted without a separate preponderance determination by the judge.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The coach's will left shares to the player who captained his toughest team, but both Helen and Ruby presented supporting evidence. The probate court considered public interviews, private conversations, and facility associations. Determining that Helen's claim was more probable than not, the court distributed the assets to her under the preponderance standard.
Maya sued the university after falling into the trench. The university asserted contributory negligence based on her skateboard tricks. The court instructed the jury that the university must prove Maya failed to exercise reasonable care by a preponderance of the evidence before reducing her recovery.
After conviction, the defendant challenged whether the state proved every element. The reviewing court applied the Jackson standard and confirmed that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, distinguishing the higher criminal threshold from the civil preponderance standard used in related tort claims.
In the family court proceeding, the state alleged the juvenile stole money from a purse. The court applied the Winship requirement and held that the prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt rather than by the lower preponderance standard that governs ordinary civil cases.
The party with the burden must show that the fact in question is more probable than not. This standard applies in most civil proceedings, including will construction and slayer determinations.
Supporting sources
A final criminal conviction for the felonious and intentional killing conclusively establishes slayer status in the civil proceeding. Absent a conviction, the court decides slayer status independently under the preponderance standard.
Supporting sources
No. The trial court need not find that the government proved the prior act by a preponderance. The evidence is admissible if the jury could reasonably find the act occurred and the probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
Preponderance requires only that a fact is more likely true than not. Criminal cases demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt for every element, as required by due process under In re Winship.
Supporting sources
The defendant must prove contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff retains the burden on the elements of the negligence claim itself.
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…