Burden of Proof

(redirected from Evidentiary burden)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial.

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 ?
Moreover, an analysis of these laws indicate that, compared with other intellectual property rights, trade secrets present an especially high evidentiary burden on plaintiffs and could involve a complex procedure that could create many traps for an MNC.
While courts have imposed strict new evidentiary burdens on plaintiffs, they have increasingly permitted defendants to seek denial of class certification without submitting to discovery.
188) Even with the Court's discussion of the burden of persuasion in Johnson, the Court once again fails to explicitly state the defendant's evidentiary burden for proving the facts.
The substantive evidentiary burden of proof that the respective parties must meet at trial is the only touchstone that accurately measures whether a genuine issue of material fact exists to be tried.
A common criticism of the direct evidence requirement is that imposing such an evidentiary burden on plaintiffs denies them full access to the mixed-motive framework "promised" by Price Waterhouse.
39) As will be described in detail in Part IV, the evidentiary burden states must meet to move from refoulement to properly mandated repatriation--from illegal to legal action--is unclear in international law and state practice.
GAO has previously recommended that Congress amend TSCA to reduce the evidentiary burden EPA must meet to control toxic substances and continues to believe such change warrants consideration.
If the burden is on the agent, however, the agent would suffer a net loss of $5 compared to nonperformance because of the $10 it would have to pay to satisfy the evidentiary burden.
In a dissenting opinion he argued for imposing an evidentiary burden on victims of employment discrimination, which would have dismantled the legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Bray v.
The Court stated "In Alberta, the Act (Occupiers' Liability Act) does not make an occupier an insurer, but shifts the evidentiary burden to the occupier to show it exercised the degree of reasonable care called by the foreseeable risk sufficient to keep a visitor reasonably sale.
Such application of precedent may effectively reduce the evidentiary burden in proving that a practice is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably in the circumstances.
The court declined to apply the new ruling to the case before it, acknowledging that its decision was an unanticipated expansion of the law of contempt in the child support context and a change in the evidentiary burden of which the parties had no notice at the time of trial.