Also known as: burden of persuasion and production · burdens of production and persuasion · burden of proof
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The allocation of responsibility in litigation for introducing evidence sufficient to avoid an adverse ruling and for persuading the fact-finder to the required degree of certainty. The burden of production requires a party to come forward with evidence on an issue. The burden of persuasion requires a party to convince the fact-finder that its position on that issue is correct.
Benito Benitez was struck by a bullet fired from one of two negligent hunters. He could not identify which hunter fired the shot. Each hunter must produce evidence showing his shot did not cause the injury. If neither meets that burden, both remain liable for the full harm.
Bethany Boyd petitioned to probate a will naming her sole beneficiary. The contestant produced evidence of undue influence. Bethany must produce prima facie proof of due execution. The contestant then bears the ultimate burden of persuasion on lack of capacity.
Brandon Black and Brittany Bell operated adjacent factories whose emissions combined to contaminate a river. Black seeks to limit his liability by apportioning the harm. Black must produce evidence showing the portion of damage attributable to his plant.
Bei Bai challenged a state law excluding women from a military academy. The state must produce evidence of an exceedingly persuasive justification. The state also bears the burden of persuasion that the classification is substantially related to an important objective.
Blake Butler sued a manufacturer after a machine part failed and injured him. Butler must produce evidence that the defect caused his harm. The manufacturer need not disprove causation unless Butler first meets his production burden.
Boreal Energy moved to dismiss a class action alleging improper fee collection. Plaintiffs must produce evidence satisfying the certification requirements. Defendants bear the burden of persuasion on any affirmative defense that would defeat class treatment.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A., provided medical care to Sonia E. Galvez for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident. As partial payment for that care, Galvez assigned to Shady Grove her rights to insurance benefits under a policy issued in New York by Allstate Insurance Co. Shady Grove tendered a claim for the assigned benefits to Allstate, which under New York law had 30 days to pay the claim or deny it. Allstate apparently paid, but not on time, and it refused to pay the statutory interest that accrued on the overdue benefits at two percent per month. Shady Grove filed this diversity suit in the Eastern District of New York to recover the unpaid statutory interest. Alleging that Allstate routinely refuses to pay interest on overdue benefits, Shady Grove sought relief on behalf of itself and a class of all others to whom Allstate owes interest. The individual claim was worth roughly $500, which fell far short of the amount-in-controversy requirement for individual suits under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 901(b), which precludes a suit to recover a penalty from proceeding as a class action, applies in diversity suits in federal court despite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Concluding that statutory interest is a penalty under New York law, it held that § 901(b) prohibited the proposed class action.
The plaintiff ordinarily bears the burden of persuasion on the elements of its claim. The defendant bears the burden of persuasion on affirmative defenses. These allocations follow from the substantive law governing the claim.
Failure to meet the burden of production allows the court to enter judgment against that party on the issue without submitting it to the fact-finder. The opposing party may obtain judgment as a matter of law.
…or overbroad." A physician's abortion conviction was affirmed. In Thompson , n. 2, the court observed that any issue as to the burden of proof under the exemption of Art. 1196 "is not before us." But see Veevers v. State , 172 Tex. Cr. R. 162, 168-169, 354 S. W. 2d 161, 166-167 (1962). Cf. United States v. Vuitch , 402 U. S.…
…routinely released, unless the plaintiff makes special application to continue its seizure, in which event the plaintiff has the burden of proof and persuasion." This limitation on the purpose and length of time for which sequestered property is held, the court concluded, rendered inapplicable the due process requirements…
…offered by Merrell, they also misunderstand the moving party's burden on summary judgment. Because plaintiffs bear the ultimate burden of proof on causation, Merrell had only to point to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact; it wasn't required to produce any evidence at all. See Maffei v. Northern Insulation of New…
…lower courts. If they denote nothing more than that a defendant claiming he was denied effective assistance of counsel has the burden of proof, I would agree. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S., at 658, 104 S.Ct., at 2046. But the adjectives "strong" and "heavy" might be read as imposing upon defendants an unusually weighty…
…of the commission of the offence charged, must be established by the evidence to the reasonable satisfaction of a jury, and the burden of proof of the insanity rests with the defendant. Although you may believe and find from the evidence that the defendant did commit the act charged against him, yet, if you further find that at the…
When multiple negligent defendants could have caused indivisible harm and the plaintiff cannot identify which one did so, the burden of production and persuasion on causation shifts to each defendant. Each must prove its conduct was not a cause in fact.
The proponent of a will must produce prima facie proof of due execution. Contestants bear the burden of persuasion on lack of capacity, undue influence, or revocation. The ultimate burden of persuasion rests on the party who had the initial burden of proof.
When multiple tortious actors combine to cause harm and one seeks to limit liability by showing the harm is divisible, that actor bears the burden of proof on apportionment. The plaintiff retains the initial burden on causation.