Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In civil law cases, such as a dispute over a contract or a claim about an accidental injury, the burden of proof usually requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in ...
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".
A legal burden is determined by substantive law, rests upon one party and never shifts. [5] The satisfaction of the evidential burden has sometimes been described as "shifting the burden of proof", a label which has been criticized because the burden placed on a defendant is not the legal burden of proof resting on the prosecution. [6]
In the United States, the expression "civil courts" is used as a shorthand for "trial courts in civil cases". [13] [14] In England and other common-law countries, the burden of proof in civil proceedings is, in general—with a number of exceptions such as committal proceedings for civil contempt—proof on a balance of probabilities. [15]
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), which held that the burden of proof shifted, once an employee had proved that an unlawful consideration had played a part in the employer's personnel decision, to the employer to prove that it would have made the same decision if it had not been motivated by that unlawful factor, but such proof by the employer ...
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense. [4]
Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 42 U.S.C. §1983 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case where the majority ruling, written by Justice Harlan , asserted that the burden of showing a lack of factual controversy rests upon the party asserting the summary judgment .