scintilla of evidence rule

/sintila av evadans/ A spark of evidence. A metaphorical expression to describe a very insignificant or trifling item or particle of evidence; used in the statement of the common-law rule that if there is any evidence at all in a case, even a mere scintilla, tending to support a material issue, the case cannot be taken from the jury, but must be left to their decision. The "scintilla evidence rule" requires that if there is even a scintilla of evidence presented to support the nonmoving party's position, summary judgment should not be granted. Chiniche v. Smith, Ala., 374 So.2d 872, 873.

With regard to precluding summary judgment for defendant, "scintilla rule" requires only that the evidence, or reasonable inferences therefrom, furnish a mere gleam, glimmer, spark, the least bit, the smallest trace, in support of plaintiffs complaint. Wilson v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., Ala., 331 So.2d 617, 619

Any material evidence that, if true, would tend to establish issue in mind of reasonable juror. Something of substance and relevant consequence and not vague, uncertain, or irrelevant matter not carrying quality of proof or having fitness to induce conviction. WigginL ton's Adm'r v. Louisville Ry. Co., 256 Ky. 287, 75 S.W.2d 1046, 1051.

Courts differ as to what constitutes a "scintilla," and some courts do not accept the rule. For example, it has been held that while the cogency of evidence is not dependent on its quantity, if the party with the burden of proof has introduced only a scintilla of evidence on an essential element of his case, a judge may direct a verdict against him. Such evidence is inadequate as a matter of law. It has also been held that it is the duty of trial court to instruct a verdict, though there is slight testimony, if its probative force is so weak that it only raises suspicion of existence of facts sought to be established, since such testimony falls short of being "evidence". Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Wells, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 927, 929