SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 176.12-1.8%Dec 16 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: slacker711 who wrote (54897)9/1/2006 9:20:04 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) of 196972
 
I dont know the exact legal standards

In most civil cases, a plaintiff must prevail by a "preponderance of the evidence", a loose standard. It's typically said that a litigant using this standard prevails if he has 51% of the evidence behind him.

Fraud and a few other things are judged more strictly using the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, a standard which is difficult to articulate but IMO opinion is closer to the very strict "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used to convict in criminal cases than to the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

I agree that Q never misled anyone. A fraud claim is not only legally difficult to prove but not justified.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News