Burden of Proof


Burden of Proof


(Latin, onus probandi), in legal procedure, the rule by which the obligation to prove particular circumstances of a case is distributed among participants in the case. Under socialist law the distribution of burden of proof reflects the competitive nature of the judicial process and activates the court’s routine.

The law of the USSR establishes that each party in a civil trial must prove the circumstances on which he relies in substantiating his claims or defense. For example, the plaintiff must prove the circumstances constituting the grounds of the suit and the facts attesting to the defendant’s violation of his rights; the defendant must prove the grounds of his defense. In each specific case the scope of facts subject to proof by those participating in the case is determined by the norms that regulate the particular legal relationship (for example, in a suit for redress of an injury the burden of proof in showing the absence of guilt falls on the defendant). In suits relating to various types of contracts, the responsibility for proving violation of an obligation rests with the creditor; the debtor must prove the facts that confirm the fulfillment of his obligations. The court has the right to direct persons participating in the trial to submit additional evidence, and it may, on its own initiative, gather evidence to determine the true relationship between the parties. In a criminal trial, the law prohibits the court, procurator, investigator, or the person who conducted the inquiry from transferring the burden of proof to the accused.

The term “burden of proof is used in bourgeois civil procedure. This burden falls entirely on the parties, and the court plays no active part in questions of proof.

References in periodicals archive ?
This example demonstrates that a burden of proof presumption does not "disappear" when evidence is introduced to rebut it.
Thus, when you say (accurately) that "the POSP is a legal presumption that allocates the burden of proof to the claimant to establish the elements of the refugee claim," you are right--that's exactly what it does, and at a high level.
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.
Smith and place the burden of proof on the prosecutor.
As long as the owner can show that s/he provided actual personal services to the business, the law shifts the burden of proof from the small business owner onto the DRA.
I suggest that the full meaning of a burden of proof becomes quite complex in the context of constitutional litigation, particularly when it involves the rights of individuals and communities who are marginalized in Canadian political and legal discourse.
(1) This framework requires that the employee first prove that his or her labor union activities were a substantial, motivating factor in the discharge; then the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show that the employee's union participation was immaterial to the discharge.
Grocery Outlet, Save Mart's rival for the use of the once-mighty California banner, said in a statement that the three-judge 9th Circuit court panel left undecided a key issue, which is establishing Grocery Outlet's required burden of proof; the court did not explain to what degree the company would have to prove that the Lucky supermarket brand was abandoned by Albertsons, Grocery Outlet said.
The court held, inter alia, that in order for a plaintiff to meet the burden of proof required to proceed in a medical malpractice case, he must present evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach of the standard of care, and causal connection for a plaintiff to meet his burden of proof, the "opinion of expert witnesses who are members of the medical profession and who are qualified to testify on the subject are necessary to determine whether or not physicians possessed the requisite degree of knowledge or skill, or failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence." The plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to substantiate her claim of malpractice.
Deepak Chopra has made his name among new age circles as a leader in mind-body medicine, and his LIFE AFTER DEATH: THE BURDEN OF PROOF forges new frontiers in blending the latest physics with wisdom analysis for further enlightenment.
The bill created new penalties that could be applied to all taxpayers and changed the burden of proof from "knew" to "should have known," which is an impossibly high standard and does not conform to federal law.
In the top court's first judgment on such a case involving motor-vehicle insurance, Presiding Justice Kazuko Yokoo at the first petty bench said the burden of proof lies with the insurer and sent the case back to the Nagoya High Court.