Burden of Proof

(redirected from Clear and convincing evidence)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial.
The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.

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.

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
If clear and convincing evidence does not show such conduct by (defendant employer) punitive damages are not warranted against (defendant employer).
(2) clear and convincing evidence with an i4i-type instruction regarding
(72) In justifying its decision, the Court remarked that, "[w]hatever the significance of a presumption in the abstract, basic principles of statutory construction require us to assume that Congress meant to incorporate 'the cluster of ideas' attached to the common-law term it adopted." (73) In importing the clear and convincing evidence the Court felt was attached to the common law term "presume," however, the Court ignored the fundamental rationale--deference to the PTO--underlying that evidentiary threshold.
On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the final order, reasoning that when an agency seeks to revoke an existing license based on violations of statutory prohibitions, the agency must prove the violations by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the court concluded, the same burden of proof should apply when an applicant is being denied a license in the first instance based on violations of the same or similar statutes, assuming that the applicant is otherwise qualified for a license.
Justice Stevens then began the core of his argument, a historical overview of the standard required to prove a defendant's incompetency.(105) He noted at the outset that Oklahoma's "clear and convincing evidence" requirement was without any apparent precedent.(106) justice Stevens also observed that the general rule against trying an incompetent defendant traced back to Hale and Blackstone, and that the first cases supporting this notion appeared in the late 1700s.(107)
Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's finding of liability, as well as the employer's burden to provide clear and convincing evidence that it would have reached the same decision if bias had not been present.
If you find that (defendant) committed the crime but you find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was insane, as I have defined that term for you, [begin strikethrough]have a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] was sane at that time,[end strikethrough] then you should find [him] [her] not guilty by reason of insanity.
Any bill that hopes to survive Florida court constitutional scrutiny, based on the existing precedents, must allow for "clear and convincing evidence" that a presently incompetent individual wanted to forego nutrition and hydration, even when the person never executed a legal document specifying his or her wishes.
Connecticut: For tax years beginning after 1998, corporations must add back to Federal taxable income interest and intangible expenses/costs directly or indirectly paid to related members, unless the corporation: (1) establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the adjustments are unreasonable; (2) establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the transaction did not have as a principal purpose the avoid ante of tax and during the same tax year, the related member paid the expense to an unrelated person; or (3) agrees in writing with the commissioner to the use of an alternative apportionment method; see P.A.
The judge ruled that as a general rule the courts favor the free and unencumbered use of property by its owner and that the party seeking to enforce a restriction on that use (here the plaintiffs who are seeking to enforce an easement over the property) must prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence of such restriction (the easement).
Hyde's bill would shift the burden of proof in civil forfeiture cases back to the government, which would have to prove by "clear and convincing evidence"--instead of the current "preponderance of the evidence"--that property it seeks to confiscate was used in a crime or was purchased with the proceeds of a crime.
It contains provisions requiring claimants seeking punitive damages to establish by clear and convincing evidence that any harm done was the result of intentional or malicious misconduct involving a conscious intent to cause injury.