Browsing All posts tagged under »preponderance of the evidence«

“I Reckon”: The Standard of Proof Applied by Judges to Restraining Order Cases

September 30, 2016


As the story goes, civil restraining orders are awarded to plaintiffs who demonstrate by a “preponderance of the evidence” that they need one. According to this story, a judge determines by actuarial science that there’s a 51% or greater probability that the petitioner’s need is valid, that is, that s/he’s representing some facts and his […]

How “Preponderance of the Evidence” Rewards Restraining Order Fraud and Why Bigger Lies Work Better than Smaller Ones

May 9, 2014


Recent posts to this blog have discussed American evidentiary standards and stressed that the standard applied to civil restraining orders, “preponderance of the evidence,” has nothing to do with proof. According to this standard, a judge should find in favor of a restraining order plaintiff if s/he figures there’s a greater probability that the plaintiff’s […]

They Don’t Have to Be True, Just “Truthy”: Civil Restraining Order Allegations and the “Burden of Proof”

May 6, 2014


“Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases. […] “The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true.” —Wikipedia, “Legal […]

No Proof Necessary: Why Restraining Orders Are Abused and Why Restraining Orders Exist

May 1, 2014


The previous post addressed American standards of evidence and observed that with a single exception, the standard that’s applied to restraining order adjudications, “preponderance of the evidence,” is the least demanding. Both the award of restraining orders and their being made “permanent” are at a judge’s discretion. (One of the meanings of discretion is “freedom to […]

“American Law is Irresponsible”: The American Civil Standard of Evidence and Abuse of Restraining Orders

April 26, 2014


“On the European continent, for the court to hold against the defendant, the judge must be convinced that the facts brought forward by the plaintiff in support of the claim are indeed true. In principle, continental law does not make a difference between civil law and criminal law […]. By contrast, U.S. law has three […]