burden of proof

(redirected from Preponderance of the evidence)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia.
Related to Preponderance of the evidence: Clear and convincing evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Burden of Proof

The obligations one party must meet to prove a fact in court. The party holding the burden of proof in a case must back each of his/her assertions with evidence for them to be legally acceptable. In a criminal case, the burden of proof rests with the prosecutor; in a civil case, it resides with the plaintiff. See also: Beyond a reasonable doubt, Preponderance of evidence.

burden of proof

In court, the responsibility to come forward with credible evidence that a thing happened or did not happen.Normally,the party who complains about a wrongdoing has the burden of proof. In some circumstances, primarily under federal laws related to discrimination, the aggrieved party need only make an allegation of wrongful behavior and the defendant has the burden of proof that his or her behavior was reasonable under the circumstances.The burden of proof may be set at different levels for various types of litigation. For example:

• When contesting a property tax valuation, the owner must generally prove that the assessment was manifestly excessive, clearly erroneous, or confiscatory. This burden of proof is very high, much more than required to show the assessment was simply inaccurate.

• Housing discrimination cases involve a three-step process that moves the burden of proof back and forth. Under what is called the McDonnell Douglas test, plaintiffs have the burden of showing they are a member of a protected minority; they applied for and were qualified to rent or purchase property; and they were rejected and the housing or rental opportunity remained available afterward. That creates a presumption of discrimination, which shifts the burden to the defendants to prove they had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions. If successful, the burden shifts back to the plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning, “more likely than not”) that the offered reason was a pretext and there really was a discriminatory purpose.

References in periodicals archive ?
standard" between preponderance of the evidence and reasonable
If the claimant presents a valid prima facie claim, he or she may recover unless the government proves by preponderance of the evidence that the vaccine did not cause the injury.
2009) (stating that the rebuttable presumption is triggered "if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a significant history of domestic violence"); ARK.
Although these principles alert an employer to the importance of meeting its burden, the overwhelming majority rule is that the actual burden of proof for establishing an exemption remains the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Although an appellate court in New Jersey required the prosecution to prove a negative: that the individual was not mentally retarded beyond a reasonable doubt, the New Jersey Supreme Court put the burden on the defense to prove mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence.
The court held, inter alia, that the court was required to review the record de nova and presume that the findings of fact by the trial judge were correct "unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
Once these two affirmative defenses are established by a preponderance of the evidence, the Government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent, and/or that the accused was not reasonably mistaken as to consent.
The individual can rebut this residency presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
As such, employees bore the burden of convincing a jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer had a duty to the employee, breached the duty with ensuing harm, and that there was a proximate cause between the breach and the harm.
The court concluded a preponderance of the evidence showed the company's shareholder-employees were reasonably compensated for each year under review and, therefore, the brothers' compensation was deductible in full.