Is there a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court?

Yes, there is a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court when it comes to securities arbitration law in Kansas. In arbitration, a party can present evidence to support their claims, but the arbitrator is given more leeway to determine what evidence is admissible and to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and the merits of the argument of each party. In contrast, in a court the standard of proof is more strict in order to ensure that the rights of the parties are respected. For example, in a civil court case in Kansas, the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” whereas in arbitration the standard of proof is typically “preponderance of the evidence” which is a lower standard. This means that in arbitration, a party only needs to show that their evidence is more likely true than not true, as opposed to having to prove their case with certainty as they would in court. Ultimately, the arbitrator takes into account all the evidence and makes a decision based on their evaluation of the evidence.

Related FAQs

Is there a difference between the standards of proof in arbitration and in court?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts