the leagleterm"prove up" Iincivil law means what?
405680
See above for one meaning.\n\nAnother is where a law suit has been settled, usually by default or stipulation as to liability, but the AMOUNT of damages is undecided. The court will then hold a hearing to determine the amount of damages to be recovered.\n\nAnother example is where a case has been resolved, including the actual damages, but there is some question or dispute over secondary recovery, such as costs or attorney's fees. The court has already determined that "reasonable costs" will be paid by the losing party, but there is disagreement over what costs were incurred, and/or which ones are reasonable.\n\nIn either of these situations, a "prove up" hearing will be held to resolve these discrepancies.
1010373
Newton advanced it as an axiom, by virtue of which it wouldn't be "proven", only tested (the resulting predictions tested.) If I say "suppose I assume a space where all parallel lines converge", I don't "prove" my assumption - it's an assumption. You work outward from it and see what you get. If what you get is impossible (or wrong), it was a bad assumption.
1044752
No proof is needed friend...to really understand using it and knowing of it...you must really believe in it first. for the sights to be set.
1153023
It is really surprising that there are still people who think they have a PROOF for statements like 1=2, 1=0, etc.\nFirst they should UNDERSTAND what is a PROOF.\n\nPROOF is a sequence of logically correct steps. If ONE of your step is wrong then it is NOT called a proof.\n\nI think these people should go back to Primary schools and LEARN the fundamentals.
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.
1106346
You know there are 8 axioms in mathematics which we cannot prove\n\n1) if 'a' and 'b' are integers then 'a+b' is an integer and 'a.b' is an integer (Closure law)\n2) a + b = b + a and a..b = b.a (cumulative law)\n3) a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c (Associative law)\n4) a (b + c) = a.b + a.c (Distributive law)\n5) a + 0 = a = 0 + a (Additive Identity)\n6) a.1 = a = 1.a (Multiplicitive Identity)\n7) for all integer 'a' there is a unique integer (-a) such that a + (-a) = 0\n8) I can't remember...\n\nSo we can prove your requirement using above axioms\n\n0 + 0 = 0 (Obivious) \na ( 0 + 0 ) = a.0 (Multiplying by same factor)\na.0 + a.0 = a.0 (Distributive over addition)\na is an integer and 0 is an integer so a.0 is an integer, hence there exits a unique -(a.0) such that -(a.0) + a.0 = 0\n\nso adding -(a.0) both sides\n\n-(a.0) + (a.0 + a.0) = -(a.0) + (a.0) \n(-(a.0) + a.0 )+ a.0 = 0 (associative law)\n0 + a.0 = 0\na.0 = 0 (additive identity)
1158142
You do an experiment a lot and find that if shows the same thing every time, then you hand it over to other scientists and let them do the same thing until it beomes a theory. Then you continue doing that for a couple of years until if is shown that in all probability whatver you are trying to prove is true in all included cases and you have a law.
1069244
Sounds kind of vague and wrong.  Gaps don't prove anything.  Gaps are the unknown.  We can make educated guesses about what happens in them, though.  The laws of physics create logical progression through a series of systematic methodical stages.  That is happening everywhere, all the time.  God doesn't have anything to do with it, unless he wrote the laws of physics, and then left.
976769
The burden of proof is on you.
590080
not prove - but offer a rationale. Same with statistics. Like Humpty Dumpty said i nWonderland " I pay the words, so they mean whatever I want them to mean."
799384
Correct. Clear and convincing is a level of proof sometimes required in a civil case for the plaintiff to prevail. It means the trier of fact must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or affirmative defense is true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
974275
I had a professor who was always very adamant that you could not prove the hypothesis. Something about you don't actually test the hypothesis, you test the question....or somehting. He was very odd. I think there's a difference between a hypothesis and fact.
99766
If you're refering to a scientific law then the new theory will have to undergo a lot of review and if the consensus among scientists is that the new law is reliable then the old law is discarded.\n\nHowever, this is very rare in science.  Usually laws evolve into a better understanding of the originally stated law.  For instance, quantum physics was not entirely understood when it was presented and over time it has become widely accepted among physicst, chemists and biologists alike.
287562
the good faith clause comes into play if, you acted in "good faith" against the law. meaning if you believe in good faith that it was legal, then you have a defense. example...i am going to unlock a car door for someone, and i run the plate and it comes back to the guys sister, mother, father, etc. then later that comes back stolen...then in "good faith" i proceeded safly. due to available info it was ok. if cops saw pot on table through window, then it is called plain site. and yes cops can search without permission.
558951
It means support it with evidence/reasoning.
927149
if u "prove" it then u might have a point
1100466
Laws are accepted a-priori as the way nature works.  There is no way to prove a law, but some things must be accepted as fundamental upon which theories can be built.  There are few laws but many theories.  Laws are usually simple expressions such as conservation of mass/energy, conservation of momentum, but some (such as the second law of thermodynamics) are complicated.\n\nTheories are more complex constructs intended to explain why certain things happen the way they do, and the best theories allow the prediction of the outcome of experiments. They usually involve mathematical expressions,  A concept reaches the status of theory after much experimental verification along with general acceptance in the scientific community.\n\nBy the way, laws do change.  Before the 20th century  there was a conservation of mass law and a conservation of energy law.  After relativity showed mass-energy equivalence, that law had to be changed.