Also known as: fair preponderance · preponderance of the evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A civil standard of proof requiring the party bearing the burden to show that the existence of a fact is more probable than not. The standard is satisfied when the evidence tips the scales in favor of the proponent even if only slightly. Courts apply the standard in civil proceedings unless a higher burden such as clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally or statutorily required.
After Dorothy's plane crash, Hannah presented evidence that Catherine had modified the controls and expressed interest in taking over the company. Catherine offered counter-evidence pointing to weather and mechanical issues. The probate court found it more likely than not that Catherine intentionally caused the death and therefore barred her from inheriting.
The government offered invoices showing Steve had previously billed a youth nonprofit for nonexistent consulting work. Steve countered that the board had approved the payments. The trial court admitted the evidence after finding the jury could reasonably conclude the prior acts occurred and that their probative value on intent outweighed any prejudice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The coach's will left shares to the captain of his toughest team, but extrinsic evidence showed he had used that phrase for both Helen's and Ruby's squads. Helen introduced contemporaneous interviews favoring her team. The court credited that evidence as establishing the coach's intention by a preponderance and awarded the shares to Helen.
State doctors testified that Addington posed a danger to himself and others based on recent behavior. Addington presented evidence that his condition was manageable with outpatient care. The court weighed the evidence and considered whether the state's showing satisfied the fair preponderance standard before addressing the applicable burden.
Essex sought to reform the aluminum supply contract after market prices shifted dramatically. It introduced internal memos showing both parties expected price adjustments. Alcoa countered with testimony that the fixed-price term was deliberate. The court found Essex's evidence slightly more convincing and reformed the contract accordingly.
Mr. Cipollone introduced evidence that Mrs. Cipollone continued smoking after 1966 warnings. The defendants offered proof she had ignored earlier warnings as well. The court weighed the post-1966 evidence under the fair preponderance standard and reduced damages accordingly.
The standard is satisfied when the party with the burden shows that the fact in question is more likely true than not. Courts describe it as evidence that tips the scales even slightly in the proponent's favor. This is the default civil burden unless a higher standard applies.
Supporting sources
The fair preponderance standard requires only that a fact be more probable than not. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt demands a much higher degree of certainty and applies in criminal cases. The lower civil standard reflects the different stakes and policy considerations in non-criminal proceedings.
Supporting sources
The standard is insufficient in certain proceedings where due process requires a higher burden. Examples include termination of parental rights, where clear and convincing evidence is required. In contrast, the preponderance standard satisfies due process in many civil and some quasi-criminal contexts such as slayer determinations.
…by lawful means. The “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule applies where the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. The doctrine is an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine and is consistent with the…