burden of proof

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

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 ?
Because of this, unless a statutory presumption is expressly created as a presumption that affects the burden of proof, or the presumption is one that implements public policy, the statutory presumption is a bursting-bubble presumption.
The first is the legal burden of proof and it is allocated to the state in criminal law, and the plaintiff in civil cases.
This article commences by giving an overview of the appearance of super-tribunals such as SAT on the Australian scene; it then provides an overview of what is generally understood by the concepts of burden of proof and standard of proof; and concludes with an investigation of the decisions of SAT to demonstrate the nuances in a super-tribunal as to who bears the burden of proof and what standard of proof is required.
However, "if the broader state interest in the health and public safety of all Canadians (not just the intravenous drug users) becomes the focus of the analysis, it cannot be said that the evidence supports the conclusion that section 4(1) of the CDSA bears no relation to or is inconsistent with these broader interests, or even that the prohibition as it applies to addicts is not necessary to protect these interests." (13) So, for Smith JA, the burden of proof borne by the claimants is not discharged, because they have not provided evidence about the effects of the law on communities beyond the DTES, or the alternatives that might have been available to Parliament to fulfill its objectives.
The NLRB adopted the Doyle test in a subsequent case, Wright Line, (21) in which it found that the employer had not satisfied its burden of proof. (22) The Board's use of Doyle's burden-shifting framework continued and has become known as the Wright Line test.
In another insurance case, the Supreme Court said in April 2001 the burden of proof lies with the claimant as for injury because otherwise it becomes easy to make illicit claims.
Specifically, the majority declined to decide whether a state may over-ride the default rule by adopting legislation or regulations putting the burden of proof on the district, acknowledging that some states have done so but, "[b]ecause no such law or regulation exists in Maryland, we need not decide this issue today." In closing, the majority clarified: "We hold not more than we must to resolve the case at hand: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief."
The adoption of a uniform burden of proof would eliminate these problems.
Prior to the changes, a taxpayer contesting an IRS audit had the burden of proof to show in court that the tax deficiency was in error or that a tax refund was due.
The Tax Court disagreed, calling the actuarial method "so complex as to defy full explanation." It concluded the certified financial data the Bakers had produced was sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the service under ItLC section 7491.
The court of appeal concluded in May 2003 that Judge Hodson should not have ruled as he did and there was a burden of proof on the defendant to prove his innocence once the prosecution had charged him.
It also specified that while a citizen designated as an "unlawful combatant" can challenge that designation, the burden of proof in such a case rests on the accused.