Have you ever wondered why people do what they do? That`s what I do, especially when it comes to litigation. Thanks to the advantage of e-filing in U.S. District Courts, we now have the opportunity to see how other litigants are approaching certain issues. Sometimes these approaches are creative, and sometimes. Well, not so much. But seriously, what does it really mean to demand “solid evidence,” and why do lemming lawyers keep putting it in their reactive pleas? Does it magically change the burden of proof from a preponderance of evidence to a reasonable doubt? Is it necessary for an applicant to prove his case only by direct evidence? If you do not add it to your answer, have you waived the possibility of seeking a directed judgment or arguing that the applicant has not met his or her burden of proof? You`ll also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have (or are passionate about) language-related jobs. Participation is free and the site has a strict privacy policy. “Paragraph 10 of the plaintiff`s originating claim is dismissed and it is proved strictly for that” – then stop. The judge, for her part, will closely monitor the effect of the point of illegality before even considering the applicant`s lack of mitigation. I often see lawyers doing things that make me scratch my head.

An example of this is when a response denies an allegation and then “requires strong evidence to support it.” When I first saw something like that, I thought, “My God, this Billy Bob surely knows what he`s doing. The strict proof, I bet Billy Bob really exists these plaintiffs. I should probably save this for the next time I write a reply. The information in this article is not intended to be legal advice. For legal advice regarding your particular situation, please contact our office to make an appointment. Civil litigation in South Carolina state courts is governed by the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which went into effect on July 1, 1985. There are a few quirks, but generally speaking, South Carolina`s rules of civil procedure are the same as the federal rules of civil procedure. The notion of “strict evidence” does not appear anywhere in the South Carolina text or the federal rules of civil procedure. Nowhere. I first thought that “solid evidence” was a relic of the old (pre-CICP) advocacy system. However, this does not appear to be the case. In Pegues v.

Polson, 128 S.C. 456, 123 S.E. 8 (1924), the South Carolina Supreme Court, citing the applicable section of the 1922 Code, concluded that the defendant`s request for “rigorous evidence” was manifestly insufficient as a refusal. Since defamation is a criminal act of words, and by words, unless you explain the meaning or how the words should be read, you will not be allowed during the process to refer to other meanings that are not contained in the pleadings. The court is very strict. In essence, the case law on the interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that the requirements for “strict evidence” in admissible pleadings are unreasonable, unnecessary and ineffective. Explanations are extremely powerful forms of remedy. Most lawyers do not use facilitation of explanations often enough. Unless specifically asked to do so, the court will not grant this discharge.

So in every case you litigate, whether it`s for a plaintiff or a defendant, ask for an explanation. Judge Milton Shadur of the Northern District of Illinois has written numerous orders dealing with “fundamental errors in pleading by counsel for defendants who did not adhere to the clear guidelines — or thrust — of the federal Code of Civil Procedure.” State Farm Mut. Car. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 277 (n.d. ill.

2001). One of these errors is that the defence lawyer requires “strict evidence”, which he considers inadmissible under the Federal Code of Civil Procedure. Determine who will be the source of this missing evidence: now determine if you will obtain it by discovery by calling a witness. `Paragraph 10 of the applicant`s application is dismissed. Although a treaty was concluded, it became illegal with the passage of a new law (etc.). Under the new law, the contract has therefore become unenforceable, so that the plaintiff cannot maintain his claim. The phrase “He is rigorously proven for this” brings absolutely no added value. If the contract is illegal, plead carefully, explain why and indicate the law that was violated. Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives us the basic rules for writing a brief or a responsive response. The defendant must accept or reject the allegations made against him by the plaintiff, failing which the unanswered allegations are considered admissible. If a defendant has positive objections, he must raise them in his reply. In addition, if the defendant has counterclaims or follow-up claims, these must also be invoked in the defendant`s reply.

Rule 8 is silent on the requirement of “rigorous proof.” If so, perhaps requests for “rigorous evidence” are red flags that require more control. Think of a “solid evidence” request similar to Van Halen`s M&M brown clause. I can`t really say why lawyers continue to bring their demands for “solid evidence” in their responsive arguments. Maybe it sounds good for customers? Perhaps it is because one day the lawyer saw it in a response and thought, as I did at first, that it was necessary to keep the complainant on his case. Or maybe it`s because the lawyer doesn`t know why he`s doing what he`s doing. Do you see the problems you will encounter – both legal and conclusive? Good! For something to appear in almost every answer I`ve read since I`ve been a lawyer, you might think the rules dictate it.