burden of proof

(redirected from Standard of proof)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia.

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.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved

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.

The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD. Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
References in periodicals archive ?
(54) As a way out, probabilists sometimes assert that the ignorant inquirer should start in the middle where the probabilities of true and false under the applicable standard of proof are both fifty percent.
This article explores the State Administrative Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) and decisions of relevance to the SAT Act, so as to discern (a) who bears the burden of proof in SAT proceedings; and (b) what is the standard of proof for findings of fact to be made.
There are, therefore, good reasons to guide important decisions implicating state power by establishing a specific standard of proof. (85) Probable cause and reasonable suspicion authorize the state to use force against its citizens and thus likewise should require the articulation of an appropriate correlative standard of proof.
specify the standard of proof necessary to overcome this presumption of
The judge might not clearly state, or the jury might not fully understand, the proper element-by-element approach to the standard of proof.
Part V sets forth an argument that the autism test cases demonstrate how the current standard of proof in vaccine cases trends too much toward awarding compensation and away from science.
Gay rubbishes Smurthwaite's argument, defending BHA rules that he says provide for the civil standard of proof - the balance of probabilities.
Secondly, and notwithstanding the removal of double jeopardy which prevents a person of interest being submitted to a second (or subsequent) trial for the same offence, surely the removal of any double jeopardy rule is bad for justice in the sense that prosecutors realise that, irrespective of the strength of any case, they can prosecute a person of interest again, and again, and again until the judge and/or jury accept a low standard of proof in order to convict an accused person.
The term "burden of proof" is one of the "slipperiest members of the family of legal terms," and the correct standard of proof when challenging the validity of a patent is no exception.
Microsoft attorneys argued the standard of proof should be lower than what was applied by the lower courts under their precedent.
Microsoft argues that the patent is invalid because a similar technology already existed - a situation known in patent law as 'prior art.' Microsoft also asked for the standard of proof for a patent's validity to be lowered from "clear and convincing" to "preponderance of evidence." In the courts, the former is a much tougher bar to clear.

Full browser ?