Scintilla-of-Evidence Rule Law & Legal Definition
Scintilla of evidence rule is a common law principle that a motion for summary judgment or for directed verdict cannot be granted when there exists even the slightest amount of relevant evidence. The matter should then be tried by a jury. Generally, federal courts do not follow this rule. The scintilla of evidence rule has been discarded in nearly all state jurisdictions. However verdicts must be based upon substantial evidence and that evidence must be reasonably believable.
The following is an example of a case law on scintilla of evidence rule :
The "scintilla of evidence rule" means that there must be some evidence arising out of testimony which elucidates the issues of fact and which enables jury to form an intelligent conclusion, but does not authorize admission of speculative, theoretical and hypothetical views. [In re Crawford, 205 S.C. 72 (S.C. 1944)]
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/scintilla-of-evidence-rule/
Showing posts with label The Estate of Lydia Tyler - Cook County Probate Court - Judge Coleman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Estate of Lydia Tyler - Cook County Probate Court - Judge Coleman. Show all posts
Friday, June 22, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Directed verdict
Directed verdict
Last updated 4 months agoFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2012)
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. More details and relevant discussion can be found on the talk page. (January 2012)
In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.
A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While the motion is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.
In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit. A judge may decide to direct a verdict of not guilty if there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove a guilty verdict.
The phrase arose when judges actually directed a jury to leave the courtroom, deliberate, and return with only the verdict predetermined by the judge. At least one jury ignored this instruction and returned a contrary verdict, leading to quite an angry response from an appellate court.[citation needed] For most of modern judicial history, however, judges in the United States have directed a verdict without a need of a jury. This concept has largely been replaced in the American legal system with judgment as a matter of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_verdict
Last updated 4 months agoFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2012)
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. More details and relevant discussion can be found on the talk page. (January 2012)
In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.
A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While the motion is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.
In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit. A judge may decide to direct a verdict of not guilty if there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove a guilty verdict.
The phrase arose when judges actually directed a jury to leave the courtroom, deliberate, and return with only the verdict predetermined by the judge. At least one jury ignored this instruction and returned a contrary verdict, leading to quite an angry response from an appellate court.[citation needed] For most of modern judicial history, however, judges in the United States have directed a verdict without a need of a jury. This concept has largely been replaced in the American legal system with judgment as a matter of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_verdict
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)