burden of proof
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 298 U.S. 178 - McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · 1936Most cited · 7,710 citing opinions
jurisdictional facts
He must carry throughout the litigation the burden of showing that he is properly in court. The authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment or that the party asserting jurisdiction may be relieved of his burden by any formal procedure. If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof.
How the Supreme Court has restated “burden of proof”
Each Supreme Court definition of “burden of proof,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “burden of proof”
Court decisions citing the 7 opinions that defined “burden of proof” — 12,640 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 7 definitions, chronological · 1864–1994
- ORIGINAL
The burden of proof lies on the person who assails the right claimed by the party in possession.
negotiable paper
it is an undoubted principle that in a case of libel as prize of war, the burden of proving the neutral ownership of the ship and cargo is upon the claimants
prize of war
While it is true that the want of probable cause is required to be shown by the plaintiff, and the burden of proof is upon her in this respect, such proof must necessarily be of a negative character, and concerning facts which are principally within the knowledge of the defendant. ... She is only required to adduce such testimony as, in the absence of proof by the defendant to the contrary, would afford grounds for presuming that the allegation in this respect is true.
malicious prosecution
As the suit is brought to recover taxes already paid, the presumption is that they were lawfully assessed and the burden rests on the taxpayer to prove the facts which establish their illegality.
tax refund suit
an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee's evidence. If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate.
FLSA wage claims · construing 29 U.S.C. § 201 · Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
- 1994·512 U.S. 267 - Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries[p38]· cited 1,114×
the duty that rests upon a party of going forward with the evidence at any given stage of the case — although eminent authority holds that this is, or should be, its primary sense." 1 B. Jones, Law of Evidence in Civil Cases § 176, p. 310 (4th ed. 1938) (citing Thayer).