References in periodicals archive ?
Punitive damages are warranted if you find by clear and convincing evidence that (employee/agent) was personally guilty of [intentional misconduct] [or] [gross negligence], which was a substantial cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant) and that:
clear and convincing evidence standard with an i4i-type instruction
In so doing, the Court cherry-picked from all of the assumptions attached to the presumption of validity to arrive at its conclusion that the clear and convincing evidence standard applied to all patents, regardless of whether the PTO's decision to grant the patent deserved deference.
First, must the department prove by clear and convincing evidence that an applicant has violated a statute in order to deny an application on that basis?
Finally, the Court examined and rejected Oklahoma's two additional arguments in support of its clear and convincing evidence standard.(123) First, Oklahoma argued that Patterson v.
If you find that (defendant) committed the crime but you find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was insane, as I have defined that term for you [begin strikethrough]have a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] was sane at that time[end strikethrough], then you should find [him][her] not guilty by reason of insanity.
Intangible expenses/costs (including intangibles-related interest expense) are not required to be added back if: (1) the related recipient is in a foreign income tax treaty country; (2) the taxpayer shows by clear and convincing evidence that the addback is unreasonable; (3) The division agrees in writing to an alternative apportionment method; or (4) the taxpayer shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the related party paid the same amount to an unrelated third party ha the same year and the underlying transaction did not have a principal purpose of avoiding New Jersey tax.
In some cases, higher standards of proof are required, such as the necessity that plaintiffs prove all material allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Several states also attempted to set punitive damage caps, although some of them were overturned on state constitutional grounds.
Supreme Court stated that there is a constitutional right to reject artificially provided nutrition and hydration, but the Court held that a state may require clear and convincing evidence, in the case of an incompetent patient, that the rejection of nutrition and hydration conforms to the patient's wishes while competent.
If the DOP seeks to censure or suspend a practitioner for less than six months, facts must be proven "by a preponderance of the evidence." In contrast, if the DOP seeks to disbar or suspend a practitioner for six months or longer (or to disqualify an appraiser), proven facts must meet the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.
And even in those instances, prosecutors have to provide "clear and convincing evidence," a tougher standard of proof than the current one.
If a designated organization or a disqualified person properly reports an economic benefit as required, the organization will have provided clear and convincing evidence that it intended to provide an economic benefit as compensation for services when paid.