Also known as: burden of proof · burden of proofs · onus probandi
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A procedural mechanism that assigns to each party the responsibility to introduce evidence and ultimately persuade the factfinder regarding specific elements or defenses in a lawsuit. The mechanism encompasses the burden of production to come forward with evidence and the burden of persuasion to convince the factfinder by the applicable standard.
Benito Benitez suffered injury from flying debris after two neighboring quarries detonated explosives on the same afternoon. He proved both operators had been negligent in their blasting procedures but could not identify which blast caused his harm. Each operator must now demonstrate that its own conduct did not produce the injury.
Bruce Baldwin petitioned to probate his uncle's will while a niece filed a contest alleging undue influence. Baldwin first presented evidence of proper execution and the testator's death. The niece then bore the task of proving lack of capacity or undue influence by a preponderance.
Bianca Blanco's farm suffered crop loss after two upstream factories released pollutants that combined in the river. Both factories conceded their discharges were negligent. Each factory must prove the portion of harm attributable solely to its own waste to limit its liability.
Bernard Bass challenged a state university policy reserving certain athletic scholarships exclusively for women. The state defended the classification by asserting it promoted diversity in sports. The university must demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification substantially related to an important objective.
Brianna Burke alleged that a single defendant's defective ladder caused her fall and injuries. She introduced evidence linking the ladder's collapse to her harm. Burke must persuade the jury that the defendant's tortious conduct was the cause in fact of her injuries.
Benjamin Brooks purchased shares of Barclay Financial after the company issued misleading public statements. He sued under Rule 10b-5 alleging the statements inflated the price. The court applied a presumption that Brooks relied on the integrity of the market price when trading.
Basic Incorporated was a publicly traded company primarily engaged in manufacturing chemical refractories for the steel industry. As early as 1965 or 1966 Combustion Engineering expressed interest in acquiring Basic but was deterred by antitrust concerns. In 1976 regulatory action removed the antitrust barrier and Combustion's strategic plan listed an objective to acquire Basic for thirty million dollars. Beginning in September 1976 Combustion representatives met and spoke by telephone with Basic officers and directors about a possible merger. During 1977 and 1978 Basic issued three public statements denying that merger negotiations were under way. On December 18 1978 Basic asked the New York Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares and announced it had been approached by another company concerning a merger. The next day Basic's board endorsed Combustion's offer of forty-six dollars per share. On December 20 1978 Basic publicly announced approval of Combustion's tender offer for all outstanding shares. Respondents are former Basic shareholders who sold their stock after Basic's October 21 1977 public statement and before the December 1978 trading suspension. Respondents brought a class action against Basic and its directors alleging that the three statements violated section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by misleading the market and causing sales at artificially depressed prices. The District Court certified the class under a presumption of reliance but granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that any misstatements were immaterial. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseThe plaintiff must prove that the defendant's tortious conduct caused the harm. This allocation appears in the general rule that the burden of proof on causation rests on the plaintiff unless an exception such as alternative liability applies.
A contestant must establish lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake, or revocation. The proponent first satisfies the burden of showing due execution.
When multiple actors' tortious conduct combines to cause harm and an actor seeks to limit liability by showing apportionment is possible, that actor bears the burden of proving the proper division of damages.
The government must supply an exceedingly persuasive justification showing the classification is substantially related to an important objective. The justification must be genuine and may not rest on overbroad stereotypes.
…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.…