## Facts

- Anderson brought a civil action against Chicago Brass Co.
- At the jury trial, the court instructed that Anderson had to prove his allegations “by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, facts and circumstances.”
- The instruction further conveyed that Anderson’s proof had to have greater “convincing power” than the evidence offered by Chicago Brass Co.
- The jury returned a verdict for Chicago Brass Co.
- Anderson appealed, asserting the burden-of-proof instruction misstated or improperly heightened the civil burden of persuasion.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury instruction defining the plaintiff’s civil burden as a “fair preponderance of the credible evidence” and as evidence with greater “convincing power” than the opponent’s evidence is a correct statement of the preponderance standard.
2. Whether the preponderance standard permits findings based on speculation rather than credible evidence and reasonable inferences from facts and circumstances.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court treated the challenged instruction’s “preponderance” formulation as consistent with Wisconsin law.
- The court’s discussion framed preponderance as a qualitative comparison of the parties’ evidence—i.e., which side’s proof is more convincing to the fact-finder.
- The decision has been relied on in later Wisconsin cases as authority that proof must rest on credible evidence and reasonable fact-finding, not conjecture.
- The decision’s subsequent use indicates the court did not condemn the “greater convincing power” phrasing as an improper elevation of the civil burden.

## Legal Principles

- In a civil case, “preponderance of the evidence” is satisfied when the evidence supporting a proposition is more convincing than the evidence opposing it.
- The fact-finder evaluates credibility, facts, and circumstances to decide whether a contention is more likely true than not true.
- A party with the burden of persuasion cannot prevail on speculation; the record must contain evidence of sufficient weight to justify the finding.

## Conclusion

The case stands in Wisconsin law for defining civil preponderance as proof that, when weighed against opposing proof, has greater convincing force and supports findings grounded in credible evidence rather than speculation.


Anderson v. Chi. Brass Co., 127 Wis. 273, 106 N.W. 1077 (Wis. 1906)