In some cases yes
Of course. A prima facie case is one which is established by sufficient evidence to prove guilt and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence produced by the other side.
To establish a prima facie speed violation, evidence such as radar readings, speedometer calibration records, and witness statements may be required. This evidence must demonstrate that the driver was exceeding the posted speed limit.
Elements that are prima facie are those that appear to be true or valid at first sight or on initial examination. These elements are presumed to be accurate until proven otherwise. In legal contexts, prima facie evidence or elements can establish a fact or case unless rebutted by further evidence.
"Unable to present a prima facie case" refers to a situation in which a party fails to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims at an initial stage of a legal proceeding. A prima facie case means that the evidence presented is adequate to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproven. If a party is unable to meet this burden, the court may dismiss the case or specific claims without requiring the opposing party to present their defense. Essentially, it indicates that the evidence is insufficient to warrant further proceedings.
If the documents include, for example, a letter from the lawyer that describes the arrangement differently from the arrangement itself, then perhaps, although intent is generally proven from all of the facts and circumstances. The family lawyer can seek to rebut your prima facie case with evidence of no mal intent, such as his / her sworn testimony, correspondence, etc.
Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), a doctrine in tort law, can establish a prima facie (evidence that sustains a judgment in the absence of contradictory evidence) case. It is not clear what you are asking in your question about "inland disputes" (definition?).
Prima facie is a Latin term meaning "at first look," or "on its face," and refers to the evidence gathered before trial which is sufficient to prove the case unless substantial contradictory evidence is shown at trial.Actually the term is fairly commonly used in many endeavors outside the court and law. Someone describing something as "Prima Facie" usually means the matter is a "slam-dunk."
how big is prima facie of a crime in CA.
"Plaintiff" indicates the question is about a civil proceeding - therefore - "a pre-ponderance of the evidence" is sufficient to win the case (if the jury agrees). The standard in a criminal trial is "Proof beyond a reasonalbe doubt" which is a more difficult standard to achieve. OR Prima Facie
It is a Latin phrase.
Prima Facie
Yes, "Prima Facie" should be capitalized because it is a Latin term that is commonly used in legal contexts to mean "at first sight" or "on the face of it."