burden of proof as access to justice: a (re) defining the light of new cpc?
Clicks: 113
ID: 163506
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
113 views
6 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #17 of 27 articles by views in Anesthesiology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The work investigates the foundations of the legal definition of evidential burden, without giving up the premise that evidence includes ensuring access to justice. From the proof of concept, permeates the bases used throughout the history of the process to define its purpose, usefulness and validity, concluding with the appropriate adoption from the perspective of a democratic process, the evidential burden and necessary distribution between the parties. Facing the new CPC, is entered in the adoption in document display headquarters or something, of mandamentais commands that can reverse the evidential system, implying an undue duty to prove.
| Reference Key |
macedo2016revistaburden
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Elaine Harzheim Macedo;Lírio Hoffmann Júnior |
| Journal | Anesthesiology |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2016.v2i2.1601
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.