burden of proof

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

burden of proof

n. Law
The duty of presenting a certain amount of evidence in order to meet the legal requirements for establishing the entitlement of the party in a case to the outcome sought.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

burden of proof

n
(Law) law the obligation, in criminal cases resting initially on the prosecution, to provide evidence that will convince the court or jury of the truth of one's contention
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

bur′den of proof′


n.
the obligation to offer credible evidence in a court of law in support of a contention or accusation.
[1585–95]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.burden of proof - the duty of proving a disputed charge
duty, obligation, responsibility - the social force that binds you to the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
References in periodicals archive ?
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.
In the Jung case, the court noted that the plaintiff's evidence must meet the "significant evidentiary burden at trial."
The language of the decision, however, suggests that the circumstantial-plus standard imposes a higher evidentiary burden than is required by Title VII.
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. Thus, the litigation burden imposes a prospective tax on the defendant agent that discourages performance.
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." The Court reviewed the system of floor inspection Safeway used, which included nightly cleaning by professional cleaners, inspection by the store manager prior to opening each day, the designation of clerks responsible for inspecting, sweeping, and mopping the floor each day, and training for employees, and decided "The conclusion reached by the trial judge appears to raise the required standard beyond that of reasonable to that of perfection.
Courts might also deem it appropriate, on a case-by-case basis, to give more specific instructions; e.g., "If you find that the practice meets the following definition of a `bait and switch,' (17) you shall find it deceptive." 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.
Although Dusky established a two-part test for competence, the Court had not yet been entirely clear as to the evidentiary burden that defendants needed to meet to satisfy the test.(16) In the 1977 case of Patterson v.
The 10th Circuit found Colorado had met its evidentiary burden by showing the core deposit intangible had an ascertainable value that was independent of goodwill and a limited useful life, the length of which could be ascertained with reasonable accuracy.
The judge made the right ruling, since allowing the lawsuit to proceed in the United States would have presented a significant evidentiary burden of proof, Weiner told WIPL.
The Lee court also looked to a 10th Circuit opinion articulating a similar evidentiary burden: