Comparative and Foreign Law Commons^™

A Comparative View Of Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont, Emily Sherwin

Emily L Sherwin

In common-law systems, the standard of proof for ordinary civil cases requires the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged are true. In contrast, the prevailing standard of proof for civil cases in civil-law systems is indistinguishable from the standard for criminal cases: the judge must be firmly convinced that the facts alleged are true. This striking difference in common-law and civil-law procedures has received very little attention from either civilian or comparative scholars. The preponderance standard applied in common-law systems is openly probabilistic and produces, on average, …

A Comparative View Of Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont, Emily Sherwin

Kevin M. Clermont

In common-law systems, the standard of proof for ordinary civil cases requires the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged are true. In contrast, the prevailing standard of proof for civil cases in civil-law systems is indistinguishable from the standard for criminal cases: the judge must be firmly convinced that the facts alleged are true. This striking difference in common-law and civil-law procedures has received very little attention from either civilian or comparative scholars. The preponderance standard applied in common-law systems is openly probabilistic and produces, on average, …

A Comparative View Of Standards Of Proof, Kevin M. Clermont, Emily Sherwin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In common-law systems, the standard of proof for ordinary civil cases requires the party who bears the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts alleged are true. In contrast, the prevailing standard of proof for civil cases in civil-law systems is indistinguishable from the standard for criminal cases: the judge must be firmly convinced that the facts alleged are true. This striking difference in common-law and civil-law procedures has received very little attention from either civilian or comparative scholars.

The preponderance standard applied in common-law systems is openly probabilistic and produces, on average, …

Statute Of Frauds--The Doctrine Of Equitable Estoppel And The Statute Of Frauds, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

In 1677 the English Parliament enacted the first Statute of Frauds to prevent "many fraudulent practices, which are commonly endeavored to be upheld by perjury and subornation of perjury." The trial system then existing in England was forced to depend upon unreliable juries, and relied upon few rules of evidence besides the rule treating parties to an action as incompetent witnesses. Thus, in passing the Statute, Parliament sought to minimize the abuses possible under the trial system by providing that virtually no important contract would be enforceable unless reduced to writing.