what is the level proof of necessary to prevail in a civil case?
99460
It is called the "preponderance of evidence".  That means that the plaintiff's evidence must weigh more heavily in the decision than that of the defendant.  A judge or a jury may decide this type of case.
1065626
It is very difficult to PREVAIL In a character-defamation suit. You have to prove that you were damaged in some way - for instance, your friends dumped you or you lost your job. Then you have to prove falsity. Most of the time it's more trouble than it's worth to bring legal action.
328897
this is my humble understanding,Ok, what I understand from the Relevancy; collateral matters. there must be an evidence such a relativity to the fact in issue as to persuade belief in its being or absence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be permissible, except for when it tends to be any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
660307
Dear Friend,\n\nThe principal of legality applies as a defense to criminal prosecution.  Legality requires as necessary preconditions to criminal prosecution:  (1) that the act in question have been specifically prohibited by published criminal law, (2) that such prohibition was in effect before the alleged actions of the defendant, and (3) that the punishment sought was specifically provided for in that published prohibition.  If any of these preconditions are not met, the defendant cannot be prosecuted.  Due process requires that you at least have a chnace to know the laws with which you're supposed to comply.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
1020740
guilty till proven otherwise. ?
214930
There must be a defendant in the caser or there is not case.  This means a defendant who can mount a defense.  In the case of a dead person they can't do that so there is no case.
213315
Evidence is first marked for identification so that the court has some way of talking about it.  "Plaintiff's One" is always "Plaintiff's One."  But, until it is entered into evidence, the court (or jury) CANNOT consider it in making their decision.\n\nWhy the two step process?  Because nothing may be admitted into evidence until somebody testifies as to its authenticity - that the witness has personal knowledge that the thing is what it is claimed to be.  After a foundation is laid to believe the item is authentic (and, for that matter, relevant), the litigant may move that it be accepted into evidence.\n\nLawyer:  I offer the following as Prosecution's Four for identification.\n\nCourt:  So marked.\n\nLawyer:  Wally Witness, can you tell me what this is?\n\nWally:  It's a baseball bat I got at bat day.\n\nLawyer:  And how do you know that?\n\nWally:  I carved my initials into it, right there.\n\nLawyer:  And what happened with the bat?\n\nWally:  This is the bat that the Defendant used to sodomize that turkey after the game.\n\nLawyer:  And, other than this evidence tag, is it in the same condition as it was on that day?\n\nWally:  Yeah, you can see it's still covered in bits of turkey.\n\nWally:  I offer Prosecution's Four into evidence.\n\nCourt:  I need a drink.
481266
This is going to depend entirely on where you are, what court you're going to, and what sort of dispute is to be heard.  The rule it refers to is probably a rule of civil or criminal procedure.  (Civil is for lawsuits, generally speaking.)  You should check with local references to find out which, or you can try asking the clerk of court for an explanation.  For the rules themselves, you may be able to find them online at findlaw.com, if you can't find them anywhere else.\n\nFrom the way you phrase it, I would guess that, in a criminal proceeding, a Rule 8 hearing may involve the prosecution needing to show cause for charges it is bringing against someone (demonstrating it has at least some evidence to support its case) and -- if there is some evidence -- formally telling the accused the charges they face (like an arraignment).  That is totally a guess, though.
613655
May depend on the state but... Basically you affirm under oath that what you say is true and did happen to the best of your knowledge. A court date will be set and it will be you plus the state or DA vs the defendent. You had better be able to prove your case in court and have been truthful in the warrant. If you weren't or etc. you could face civil suite by the defendent. If things are what you said then I would not worry and press forward with the truth. There are other things along the way... arraignment, pre-trial, hearing or trial etc. Depends on if the defendent pleads guilty.
259172
First, you conduct sufficient legal/factual research to determine if you have a viable cause of action.\n\nThen you research in the legal procedural manuals of the particular jurisdiction to find the specific requirements for producing the actual documents that you'll have to file, and in what form those must be.\n\nYou produce those documents according to the required form and format, and then file them, usually paying a filing fee, with the Clerk of the Court of the relevant court/jurisdiction.  The initial documents will almost always include a complaint, which sets forth your causes of action, and some kind of notice to be served upon the party(ies) that you're suing, all of which must be served upon them in the fashion required by the procedural rules.  \n\nThe defendant(s) will then have a period of time in which to file an answer to the complaint you filed, and you're "off to the races."
1048575
Maintain a sense of reasonable doubt. Accept proofs that work beyond a reasonable doubt as real. Accept cooberated circumstantial evidence, with physical evidence.\n\nTest everything except your wife's, and God's love.
278611
It's a sworn statement in writing, usually used for evidence in court.
342215
The only way to prove an abuse of judicial discretion is to provide evidence that the judge's decision violates either some legislation, some legal precedent from a higher court, or in very rare cases, customary practice in that jurisdiction.\n\nIt would be impossible to get into greater detail without knowing the specifics of the case.
181955
You can file a civil lawsuit for defamation of character, or for slander.  But it's a difficult one to prove, and therefore you may have trouble finding a lawyer willing to take the case.  The chances of winning such a case in pro per (that is, being your own lawyer) are vanishingly small.  For one thing, you must prove detriment: that you have been harmed in some economic way.  If the harm is just emotional, then you must have medical expenses for treatment, or something which can be calculated as economic damages.
418715
Well - you have to ask yourself - is it worth going to court for. Depending on how much money it is, you can either go to small claims or go for a civil suit. I'm nearly 100% sure that you can probably get them to settle but you need some type of documented paperwork. In a civil suit - its beyond a preponderance - so - as long as your evidence provides at least 50% - its not beyond a reasonable doubt. Again - i'd need to know more about the case - but in general - you need the paper work documenting what they said - otherwise it becomes a game of he said she said.
282234
In the federal sector you must have either/or evidence to support the claim, notes of what occurred with questions that have to be answered who, what, when, and how. You should also have a list of potential witnesses. First will come an informal investigation to determine if a formal investigation is warranted. After that there will be a lot of time frames that will have to be met in a timely manner. after that you basically play a waiting game.
846154
It would have to be proven with doctors. You also need to consult a lawyer. Either way it will be a long and hard fought process and hard to win.