SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE

3 definitions found across Law Mind sources

← Dictionary
SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCEAuthored
The Law Mind • 1202 words
Definition
A scintilla of evidence is the smallest possible quantum of evidence — a trace or spark — that could, if believed, tend to support a material fact in dispute. The term appears in two distinct legal contexts: 1. As a standard of sufficiency: A bare minimum of evidence; the threshold below which a claim or defense cannot survive a directed verdict or summary judgment motion. To say that a party has "not even a scintilla of evidence" is to say their position is entirely unsupported. 2. As the scintilla rule (historical): A once-influential common law doctrine holding that if any evidence, however slight, tended to support a material issue, the judge was required to submit that issue to the jury. Under this rule, judges could not direct a verdict against a party so long as any trace of supporting evidence existed. The scintilla rule has been substantially rejected in American federal courts and in England, replaced by the "substantial evidence" standard. ---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Scintilla" in ordinary English means a tiny trace or spark of something — as in "not a scintilla of doubt" or "not a scintilla of proof." The word carries its Latin origin (a spark) visibly into everyday speech. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's defines scintilla as "a spark; the least particle; an iota; a tittle." The gap between common and legal meaning is not one of definition but of doctrine. In ordinary English, "scintilla" is simply an intensifier meaning a very small amount. In law, the same word anchors a formal evidentiary rule — the scintilla rule — with procedural consequences for whether a judge may withdraw a case from the jury. A researcher encountering "scintilla of evidence" in historical legal sources cannot treat it as merely colorful language; it signals a specific and contested procedural doctrine. ---
Common Confusion
The scintilla rule and the substantial evidence standard are frequently conflated in older secondary sources, and the historical shift between them is often understated. The scintilla rule was permissive toward jury submission: even a whisper of evidence compelled the judge to let the jury decide. The substantial evidence standard demands more — evidence that a reasonable jury could actually credit and that rises to a meaningful level of probative weight. These are not two names for the same threshold. In historical research, assuming that "scintilla" language in a 19th-century opinion reflects modern sufficiency doctrine will produce analytical error. ---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus will encounter "scintilla of evidence" in two very different ways depending on the era and jurisdiction of the source material. In 19th-century American and English cases, the scintilla rule was a live and contested doctrine. Courts in Georgia, Missouri, Vermont, and Iowa (among others) applied versions of it. Finding a citation to the rule in a period source does not mean the rule was universally accepted — it was actively litigated and criticized throughout the latter half of the 1800s. The erosion of the scintilla rule is a critical transition point. Federal courts and English courts moved toward requiring "substantial evidence" before a case could reach the jury, effectively raising the floor for jury submission. This shift affects how directed verdict and summary judgment standards developed. A researcher tracing the history of sufficiency-of-evidence doctrine must track this transition carefully; sources on either side of it are not interchangeable. In modern usage, "not a scintilla of evidence" appears frequently in judicial opinions as rhetorical shorthand — meaning there is no evidence at all — rather than as a reference to the formal scintilla rule. Context determines which meaning is operative. The rhetorical use persists even where the doctrinal rule has been abandoned. The term also appears in motions practice. A motion for summary judgment or a motion for directed verdict (now judgment as a matter of law under the Federal Rules) often turns on whether the nonmoving party can produce more than a scintilla of evidence to support their claim. In this context, "scintilla" functions as the explicit rejection threshold: courts articulate the standard as requiring evidence beyond a mere scintilla. Researchers using the Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia should note that the scintilla concept intersects with Rules of Evidence in Criminal Cases (Overview), particularly in discussions of sufficiency challenges and the threshold for submitting questions of fact to the jury. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Bouvier's Law Dictionary are in close agreement on this entry, and both primarily define "scintilla of evidence" through the lens of the scintilla rule rather than as a simple evidentiary quantum. Both sources frame the rule identically: where any evidence, however slight, tends to support a material issue, the case must go to the jury, because the jury is the exclusive judge of evidentiary weight. Both cite the same cluster of state court authorities (43 Ga. 323; 106 Mass. 271; 40 Mo. 151). Bouvier's adds meaningful detail that Black's truncates. Bouvier's explicitly notes that in United States courts and in England, the "more reasonable rule" had been adopted — one requiring that before evidence is submitted to the jury, it must be sufficient to justify a verdict in the party's favor. This is the substantial evidence standard displacing the scintilla rule, and Bouvier's treats it as the emerging consensus position. Black's entry cuts off before reaching this point, leaving the impression that the scintilla rule was more settled than it was. Neither historical dictionary fully captures the extent to which the scintilla rule became a minority position in American federal practice. Researchers relying solely on these dictionary entries will see the debate acknowledged but not resolved. The historical dictionaries are most useful here for confirming the doctrinal framing and the period authorities, not for understanding the rule's ultimate fate. ---
Jurisdictional Note
The scintilla rule survived longer in some state courts than in federal courts, and pockets of state-level application persisted well into the 20th century. Federal courts operate under the substantial evidence standard, codified in practice through the summary judgment and judgment-as-a-matter-of-law framework. Researchers should not assume that a state court decision citing the scintilla rule reflects current doctrine in that jurisdiction without independent verification. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Rules of Evidence in Criminal Cases (Overview) — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia Pretrial Motions: Motion to Suppress Evidence — The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia ---
Related Terms
Substantial evidence — the standard that displaced the scintilla rule; requires evidence a reasonable fact-finder could credit Directed verdict — the procedural mechanism most commonly triggered by scintilla-rule arguments Judgment as a matter of law — modern federal equivalent of directed verdict; governed by the post-scintilla sufficiency standard Summary judgment — pretrial sufficiency determination; courts regularly invoke the "more than a scintilla" formulation Sufficiency of evidence — parent concept Weight of evidence — distinguished from sufficiency; the province of the jurynot the court Prima facie evidence — related threshold concept; minimum showing to survive challenge Burden of proof — the broader framework within which scintilla analysis operates
SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCEmain
Black's Law Dictionary • 1891
doctrine that where there is any evidence, however slight, tending to support a materi- al issue, the case must go to the jury, since they are the exclusive judges of the weight of the evidence. 43 Ga. 323; 106 Mass. 271; 40 Mo. 151. Scire debes cum quo contrahis. You ought to know with whom you deal. 11 Mees. & W. 405, 632; 13 Mees. & W. 171. Scire et scire debere æquiparantur in jure. To know a thing, and to be bound to know it, are regarded in law as equivalent. Tray. Leg. Max. 551.
SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCEmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
The doctrine that where there is any evidence, however slight, tending to support a ma- terial issue, the case must go to the jury, since they are the exclusive judges of the weight of the evidence. 43 Ga. 323; 106 Mass. 271: 40 Mo. 151; 87 id. 462; 85 Ia. 585; 48 Vt. 358. In the United States courts and in England, it has been decided that the more reasonable rule is, " that be- fore the evidence is left to the jury, there is, or may be, in every case, a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party pro- ducing it, upon whom the burden or proof is imposed;" 94 U. S. 278; 11 How. 373: 9 Wall. 197; 13 С. В. 916; 8 C. B. N. S. 150. The old rule is likewise exploded in several of the states, whose courts are now in the constant habit of ordering nonsuits against the complaint of the plaintiff: 49 N. J. L. 671; 76 Me. 132; 1 Greene 494; 9 Gill 331; 26 Ν. Η. 351; 49 N. Y. 671; or giv- ing peremptory instructions to the jury to find for one party or the other; 71 N. C. 451; 15 Kan. 244; or of sustaining demur- rers to the evidence, in cases where there is confessedly some evidence supporting a material issue. This is done under the guise of various expressions, which seem to leave the ancient prerogative of the jury intact. In Maryland, the judge achieves this result by determining the legal suf- ficiency of the evidence; 7 Gill & J. 20: and in Missouri by determining its legal effect; 9 Mo. 113. See Thomps. Charg. Jury § 30; Thomps. Jur. § 2246. SCINTILLA JURIS (Lat. a spark of law or right). A legal fiction resorted to for the purpose of enabling feoffees to uses to support contingent uses when they come into existence, thereby to enable the statute of uses, 27 Hen. VIII., to execute them. For example, a shifting use: a grant to A and his heirs to the use of B and his heirs, until C perform an act, and then to the use of C and his heirs. Here the statute executes the use in B, which, being coextensive with A's seisin, leaves no actual seisin in A. When, however, C performs the act, B's use ceases, and C's springs up, and he enjoys the fee-simple: upon which the question arises, out of what seisin C's use is served. It is said to be served out of A's original seisin; for upon the cessor of B's use it is contended that the original seisin reverted to A for the purpose of serving C's use, and is a possibility of seisin, or scintilla juris. See 4 Kent 238, and the authorities there cited, for the learning upon this subject; Bur- ton, R. P. 48; Wilson, Springing Uses 59; Washb. R. P. SCIRE FACIAS (Lat. that you make known). The name of a writ (and of the whole proceeding) founded on some pub- lic record. Fost. Fed. Pr. 301. Public records, to which the writ is ap- plicable, are of two classes, judicial and non-judicial. Judicial records are of two kinds, judg- ments in former suits, and recognizances which are of the nature of judgments. When founded on a judgment, the pur pose of the writ is either to revive the judgment, which because of lapse of time -a year and a day at common law, but now varied by statutes-is presumed in law to be executed or released, and therefore execution on it is not allowed without giv- ing notice, by scire facias, to the defend- ant to come in, and show if he can, by re- lease or otherwise, why execution ought not to issue; or to make a person, who de- rives a benefit by or becomes chargeable to the execution, a party to the judgment, who was not a party to the original suit. In both of these classes of cases, the pur- pose of the writ is merely to continue a former suit to execution. When the writ is founded on a recognizance, its purpose is, as in cases of judgment, to have execu- tion; and though it is not a continuation of a former suit, as in the case of judg- ments, yet, not being the commencement and foundation of an action, it is not an original, but a judicial, writ, and at most is only in the nature of an original action. When founded on a judicial record, the writ must issue out of the court where the judgment was given or recognizance en- tered of record, if the judgment or recog- nizance remains there, or if they are re- moved out of the court where they are; 3 Bla. Com. 416, 421; 8 Gill & J. 359; 2 Wms. Saund. 71, notes. See 78 111. 78; 58 Tex. 472. Scire facias to revive a judgment being a continuation of the suit, jurisdiction thereon is in the court where the judg- ment was rendered, regardless of the res- idence of the parties; 71 Tex. 103. A scire facias to revive a judgment being re- garded in Pennsylvania as a substitute for an action of debt on the judgment, a judg- ment so revived without service or appear- ance has no binding force as against a defendant who resides in another state; 161 U. S. 642; and in Vermont it is held that when judgment is thus revived the plaintiff cannot recover in another state thereon after the limitation has

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In
The Law Mind Legal Dictionary. This is a legal research library, not a lawyer.
Dictionary • Encyclopedia • Sign In