 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Erdahl v. Groff3/18/1998
or small, that the claim asserted in civil proceedings may be upheld.
Kaarup v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 485 NW2d 802, 805 (SD 1992) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). See also Northern Tankers (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Backstrom, 901 FSupp 72, 75 (DConn 1995) (plaintiff does not have to establish he will prevail but only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of a claim); Anderson v. Public Employees Retirement Bd., 895 P2d 1377, 1381 (OrCtApp 1995) ("'probable cause' means that 'facts and circumstances provide an objectively reasonable basis for agency to proceed'"); State v. Seventy-Seven Thousand Fourteen and no/100 Dollars, 607 So2d 576, 582 (LaCtApp 1992) ("probable cause" in a civil case for a drug related forfeiture is less than a preponderance of evidence, but more than a suspicion); Young Oil Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Durbin, 412 So2d 620, 626 (LaCtApp 1982) (for purposes of civil recovery, "robable cause is not synonymous with 'preponderance', being somewhere between 'preponderance' and 'suspicion'").
[ ] We conclude that the term "probable cause" in SDCL 20-13-28.1, at the time Erdahl's claim was filed, denoted a lesser standard than "preponderance of the evidence." The circuit court's definition fits such a standard. It requires only that a reasonable, intelligent, and prudent person would have more than a suspicion, upon reasonable inquiry, that a cause of action exists, whether the chances of success on the merits is great or small. We hold the circuit court did not err in its definition of "probable cause."
The Record Applied to the Standard
[ ] Division on the first remand concluded that even under the "probable cause" standard as defined by the circuit court, no probable cause existed to support Erdahl's claim. Whether Division correctly applied the facts to the law is a mixed question of law and fact, and as such is fully reviewable.
ixed questions of law and fact are questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.
Permann, 411 NW2d at 118 (quoting Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 US 273, 289 n19, 102 SCt 1781, 1790 n19; 72 LEd2d 66, 80 n19 (1982)).
[ ] If the question requires the court to "consider legal concepts in the mix of fact and law and to exercise judgment about the values that animate legal principles, then the concerns of judicial administration will favor the appellate court, and the question should be classified as one of law and reviewed de novo." Id. at 119 (quoting United States v. McConney, 728 F2d 1195, 1202 (9thCir 1984)). See also Huck, supra.
[ ] Division cited the following established facts in its investigative findings to support its Conclusions that Groff's conduct was welcomed and did not constitute "quid pro quo."
1. Erdahl sent Groff roses on 1/25/94.
2. Erdahl's former boyfriend testified that Erdahl dated Groff.
3. Erdahl sent Groff a birthday card.
4. Erdahl and Groff engaged in a romantic sexual relationship.
5. Eighteen different witnesses were aware that Groff and Erdahl were "dating," and had some type of personal relationship.
6. Erdahl's own witness testified that Erdahl said she was "not having sex with him often enough."
7. Erdahl invited Groff to her parent's home.
8. Erdahl visited Groff at his house all while she allegedly was offended or did not welcome his attention.
9. Most e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|