सबूत-का-बोझ हिंदी उपयोग और उदाहरण

इसके माध्यम से ये दर्शाया जाता है कि दर्शनशास्त्रिय सबूत का बोझ उस व्यक्ति पर है जो वैज्ञानिक दृष्टि से झूठाया न जा सकने वाला दावा कर रहा हो, बजाय उस व्यक्ति के जो उस दावे को अस्वीकार कर रहा हो।

"" इसका यह दरशाने के लिये प्रयोग किया जाता है की दर्शनशास्त्रिय सबूत का बोझ उस व्यक्ति पर है जो वैज्ञानिक दृष्टि से झूठाया न जा सकने वाला दावा कर रहा हो।

सबूत-का-बोझ इसके अंग्रेजी अर्थ का उदाहरण

These cases are heard in a civil not criminal court which means that there’s no jury, the burden of proof is lower and the police can introduce evidence of previous convictions which need not even be in a football context".

Strategic maneuvring with the burden of proof.

Informed consent was developed further, made more prescriptive and partly moved from 'Medical Research Combined with Professional Care' into the first section (Basic Principles), with the burden of proof for not requiring consent being placed on the investigator to justify to the committee.

Legal burden of proof.

Most community property states apply a presumption of community property; where there is any commingling the burden of proof is on the party disputing the classification to "trace" the property back to individual property, and demonstrate an intent to keep it separated.

That increased the government's burden of proof; since 1966, there have been no successful criminal prosecutions under FARA.

by failing to raise a timely objection, then on appeal, the burden of proof is on that party to show that plain error occurred.

If the party did raise a timely objection that was overruled, then on appeal, the burden of proof is on the other party to show that the error was [error].

Scope of review is to the appellate court what the burden of proof is to the trial court.

In libel cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

Directive 97/80/EC, on the burden of proof in sex discrimination claims.

In another minority opinion, Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé argued that the first and third criteria set out by Cory should suffice for a conviction; she did not favour a burden of proof whether there was an actual risk of harm.

The court also did not rule that any burden of proof exists whether the accused even knew how to protect their sexual partners.