No, a case cannot proceed to trial without any evidence. Evidence is necessary to support the claims made by both the prosecution and defense in a trial. Without evidence, there is no basis for a trial to proceed.
Not likey. In a case where there is no evidence or witnesses it turns into a he-said she-said battle.
You cannot proceed with the game if you have not received all the evidence. The evidence acts as a trigger to continue the story.
An individual who has been accused of a crime may return an indictment if there is enough evidence to formally charge them. An indictment is typically returned by a grand jury following a presentation of evidence by the prosecutor. The indictment signifies that there is enough evidence for the case to proceed to trial.
Provided there's clear evidence of a proper service, than yes.
After a preliminary hearing in a legal case, the judge decides if there is enough evidence for the case to proceed to trial. If there is sufficient evidence, the case will move forward to trial. If not, the case may be dismissed.
Criminal activity is generally reported to the local police. Take your evidence there and you will be instructed as to how to proceed with your claim.
Proceed with.
Proceed to the exit. You may proceed in an orderly manner.
By presenting evidence upfront, you are showing "factual" basis for your argument. Without evidence, to proceed in a case would be like your "word" vs my "word." In Legal matters, there are too many crazies out there just arguing about "opinions" and there are probably zero grounds for the case in the first place.
Evidence supports a model in which periods of relative stability are punctuated by short periods of rapid (relatively speaking) change. It could, theoretically, be possible for evolution to proceed in a gradual manner. However, mathematical modelling and fossil evidence show that punctuated equilibrium is the norm.
One homograph for "proceed" is "proceed," which can mean to continue or to move forward.