Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

no evidence

Read a random definition: entitlement

A quick definition of no evidence:

Term: NO EVIDENCE

Definition: No evidence means that there is not enough proof to support a claim or argument. It is when someone cannot show enough evidence to convince a judge or jury that their side is true. This can happen in a court case when one party cannot prove an important part of their case. It is important to have evidence to support your claims, otherwise, you may not win your case.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: No evidence means that there is not enough proof to support a claim or argument. It refers to the lack of legally sufficient evidence that a reasonable person could use to make a decision.

For example, if someone is accused of a crime, but there is no evidence to prove that they committed the crime, then there is no evidence against them. Similarly, if a person is making a claim in a court case, but they cannot provide any evidence to support their claim, then there is no evidence to back up their argument.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party can request a judgment as a matter of law if the other party has not provided enough evidence to prove their case. This is called a no-evidence motion, but it does not mean that there is literally no evidence. It means that the evidence presented is not sufficient to support the claim.

For instance, if a person is suing their employer for discrimination, but they cannot provide any evidence that they were treated unfairly, then the employer may file a no-evidence motion to have the case dismissed.

Noerr–Pennington doctrine | no-fault auto insurance

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.