Burden of Proof in a Civil Case

Рет қаралды 25,328

Peter J. Lamont

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 42

@omarjabra2082 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much and we need more about all the branches of civil laws

@alabingbo 2 жыл бұрын

Hello: thank you for this valuable information; you're a great teacher.

@lucilleritz5450 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for clarifying. It is helpful

@machumak4915 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for this. I have a really silly plaintiff it makes me laugh 😂

@daniellekaindaneh1331 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for this video.

@dariness7176 3 жыл бұрын

love the channel and was wondering if I can ask if I had a case for nied-I have been getting unemployment since september using it to pay current and past due medical Bill's, rent and rides for doctor appointments. I been through two fed 300 boost extensions from Biden,I asked and confirmed with unemployment it was going to last till September but a recent call made In may I was told that suddenly the boost program is ending and I wasn't notified until the call. It put me in a tight spot to finish medical and the rest of my back rent. Can I do something to take them to court

@personalinjuryshow Жыл бұрын

Awesome explanation. Thank you

@adamcasey6509 3 жыл бұрын

Good explanation. Nicely done mate

@PeterJLamontEsq 3 жыл бұрын

Much appreciated

@Unknown-hu4gf 2 жыл бұрын

Yes, how do you defend against a preponderance of evidence standard in a college disciplinary hearing?

@shyamthimmaiah712 6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the information. I have evidence that due to negligence of the employer I had head injury. And after the accident the employers insurer pushed me to work immideatly after 9 days admitted in hospital.MRI and EEG clearly shows life threatening injuries had happened due to the fall. And no symptoms or activities of eplypsy. Due to no rest or healing I become eplyptic with in 2 months of accident. I hope this evidence is far enough to prove my worker compensation claim case.

@captainrick5248 Жыл бұрын

I am pro se against the va medical center. I can't afford the financial requirements of normal procedures but can make a strong case from medical records. Do you have any input as to how I can be successful?

@tootsthegodmommy463 5 жыл бұрын

Good info

@Ygidfn 3 жыл бұрын

Hello. I’m not quite sure to understand the 1%. Let’s say I am an employer and my employee (which is unionized) is contesting my disciplinary sentence. In this case, would the employer be holding the burden of proof or my employee ? Great content btw.

@liberalmonk839 2 жыл бұрын

Interesting question. I understand it like YOU claimed, that the worker did something wrong. Therefore YOU claimed, that he should get the disciplinary sentence. So, IMHO, YOU claim something and therefore now the worker requires you to show evidence and proof of your claim. You have the burden of proof, because you were the one who claimed something first. The worker is contesting, which means he requires proof of you, because you have burden if proof

@liberalmonk839 2 жыл бұрын

Umm, but maybe there are contract situations, where the worker is always required to prove how much work he did every day.

@Coltara Жыл бұрын

thats a big fancy watch

@emmahall3298 5 жыл бұрын

If the respondent claims undue influence in a probate case does the burden shift back to the petitioner? But if the burden of proof rest on the respondent does the petitioners attorney not do anything to counter what they’re going to bring? Are witnesses allowed to leave the stand walk out the court room and tell the waiting witnesses everything that just went on? Does the petitioners attorney question the respondents witnesses before court?

@user-gh3ff9hq6w 5 жыл бұрын

The party alleging the undue influence has the burden of proof. If the Defendant is alleging undue influence on Decendent prior to or when signing the Will they have to prove it then. The burden of Proof belongs to the party asserting a claim. Generally the Plaintiff or Petitioner but it shifts if Defendant or Respondent rises an Affirmative Defense which is basically a reaource stating that Defendant is not liable for action or omission that caused damage to Plaintiff. Since Defendant is alleging he or she was justified to do it, Defendant has to prove it then.

@u.g.528 5 жыл бұрын

Thanks

@PeterJLamontEsq 5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for your kind words!

@angeldavis3359 2 жыл бұрын

What is the difference between civil and criminal cases when it comes to burden of proof. Can someone explain to me a little more about preponderance of evidence vs beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt I understand pretty good but the preponderance of evidence throws me a little. I'm currently writing a paper about the difference between burden of proof in civil and criminal cases. Thank you!!

@PeterJLamontEsq 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comment. I will being doing videos on the topic shortly.

@angeldavis3359 2 жыл бұрын

@@PeterJLamontEsq Please let me know when you do. I have notifications set but sometimes they get missed. Thank you again!

@rameshkataria4769 7 жыл бұрын

Informative

@PeterJLamontEsq 7 жыл бұрын

Thank you.

@peterthompson6651 5 жыл бұрын

Why on earth would you be a plaintiff when you can be a claimant? Why be a person? When you can go in to your court as a Man/Woman. People have to understand the words they're speaking instead of just babbling. Just look up the definitions of words in an etymology dictionary. Esquire (n) late 14th century, from middle French esquier "squire,"shield-bearer" (for a knight), from old French esquier "shield-bearer (attendant young man in training to be a knight),groom. From mediaeval Latin scutarius shield-bearer, guardsman. Then when when an attorney passes the bar licence, who becomes a Mr (master), Master (n) or a (v) look it up for yourselves. Person (n) early 13c, from old French persone "human being, anyone," (12c, modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona ” human being, person, personage, a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theatre. Plaintiff (n) c1400, from anglo-french pleintif (late13c), noun use of old French plaintif "complaining, wretched, miserable. Claimant (n) "one who demands anything as a right," 1747, from claim (v), on model of appellant, defendant, etc. Claim (v) c1300, "to call all, call out, to ask or demand by virtue of right or authority," from accented stem of French flamer, to call, name, describe; claim, complain, declare," from Latin clamare "to cry out, shout, proclaim,". Meaning " to maintain as true, assert a belief or opinion is from 1864. Claim (n) early 14c "a demand of a right, right of claiming. When you open your court with a claim as a Man/Woman the burden of proof is always on the wrongdoer, an irrefutable fact. A claimant speaks for themselves and never never needs somebody from the legal field, an attorney can never tell you how to be a Man/Woman. if the wrongdoer walks into court with an attorney you've got them, because as soon as that attorney speaks, object and ask if they want to speak to take a stand, they never do. Inform the magistrate that they have no right of standing/right of audience and if they speak again hold them in contempt and have them removed. Your court is the highest court in the land, some call it Queen's bench some call it kings bench. Every sovereign knows how to move their own Court, in their court it's there rules and their meaning of words, their definitions.

@kristiejoy 5 жыл бұрын

Peter Thompson have you done this or do you know anyone who has? I’m asking sincerely.

@robertmtaylor2472 2 жыл бұрын

You as the Plaintiff has to have the Preponderance of the Evidence, to win Civil Harassment Cases, like the one I won last Tuesday, against the Defendant. If you do have a Preponderance of the Evidence, and tell the Truth, the Judge can Grant you your Permanent Restraining Order, for up to Three Years, and possibly up to: Five Years.

@arthick6466 6 жыл бұрын

The link doesn't work Peter.

@richardlfutrill5948 5 жыл бұрын

SO IF A CHIEF OF POLICE HELPED A BURGLAR TAKE A SAFE OUT MY HOUSE THAT HAD EVIDENCE IN IT THAT ME THE RESIDENT OF THE HOUSE WAS DEPENDING ON IN A CRIMINAL CASE AND THE EVIDENCE GOT DESTROYED I CAN SUE BECAUSE THE COP OWED ME HIS DUTY TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS AND PROPERTY