Sentences with phrase «convincing than defendants»

If plaintiffs are more convincing than defendants, the plaintiffs have a shot at winning.)

To meet the burden of proof in a personal injury case, a plaintiff must prove his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the plaintiff must present evidence that when weighed by the judge or the jury, is more convincing than the defendant's.

Not exact matches

As Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan wrote in 1981, «There is almost nothing more convincing than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says, «That's the one!»»

«This case is very simple: Defendants convince consumers to buy their «FIJI» brand of bottled water — and to pay more for FIJI than for competing brands — by advertising and labeling FIJI as «The World's Only CARBON NEGATIVE bottled water».

I am convinced that the «Happy Gilmore» shot would have been less controllable than a normal tee shot, both because it involved a run - up to the ball (rather than an aimed shot from a stationary position) and because the defendant had been drinking throughout the day...

However, in this case the defense team was betting on the 50 % rule, which works like this: if the defense team could convince the jury that the plaintiff (my client, the injured motorcyclist) is more than 50 % at fault for the crash, the defendant (the negligent minivan driver) would not have to pay for non-economic damages, which include pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, scarring and disfigurement, and other long - term problems as a result of the crash.

It is defined differently in different states and jurisdictions, however, most jurisdiction, including California define the civil lawsuit proof standard as «by a preponderance of the evidence» for most types of claims and, the slightly higher standard of «clear and convincing evidence» for claims for punitive damages (damages meant to punish the defendant rather than just compensate the victim).

If the prosecutor in a criminal trial failed to convince the trier of fact (the judge or jury) that no reasonable doubt existed as to the defendant's guilt, a plaintiff may nevertheless be able to show that it was more likely than not (the definition of a preponderance of the evidence) that the defendant committed the child abuse alleged in a civil trial.

[10] Moreover, most American jurisdictions have in recent decades required that punitive damages be awarded only if the plaintiff has proven the defendant's culpable state of mind with «clear and convincing evidence,» rather than the traditional, «preponderance of the evidence» standard.

In our eyes, it's no different than having a defendant pay $ 25,000 to the plaintiff's attorney to convince his client to settle a lawsuit.