This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I keep seeing law pages turn up that are not listed at list of legal topics. Could the authors please attend to that? Michael Hardy 00:24 May 1, 2003 (UTC) There seem to be many pages that are legal topics that have never been listed in legal topics, I doubt if the authors can be located to do that kind of cross linking. I've found about 30 so far. Alex756 08:34 May 1, 2003 (UTC) Since May first at least 80 law entries added to list of legal topics most not new. Alex756 01:41 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
So, who wants to write simple:Affirmative defense? :) -- Spikey 18:40, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Isn't that term also used in criminal law? -- JensMueller 21:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How can this be? I'm of the understanding that BARD is only for criminal law. Civil cases are on the "balance of probabilities". PullUpYourSocks 21:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Civil cases require only require a "preponderance of evidence", but that's not the point that was being made: the point was that the prosecution's burden is normally BARD in proving facts of a crime, but the defense has the burden of proof in making an affirmative defense, but the argument does not need to be made BARD. -- Mr kitehead 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Description of Insanity defense as "best known" seems both misleading & in error. Insanity & Intoxication are anomalous from ther rest of the category of affirmative defenses. The far more common defenses of "Self-Defense" and "Necessity" serve better to illustrate the class. I will preserve the commentary of Insanity with the description of most controversial, which I believe was the editors intended assertion. CheshireKatz 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Affirmative Defense is similar and dissimilar to a counter-claim, as it defends the specific allegations and also states that there is contributory tortuous conduct on behalf of the complainant as well, whereas a counter claim admits guilt but states the complainant is equally or more tortuous in the claim and the defendant seeks damages for the subsequent injury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SUITuP1981 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible" TheHappiestCritic ( talk) 20:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed the statement, “It can be used with other defenses such as self-defense. Self-defense would still be available even if the defendant mistakenly believes that he was in imminent danger of harmful or offensive bodily contact citation needed” from the “mistake of fact” section because it is wholly unreferenced, and whether it is true or not may vary from state to state. 50.246.99.245 ( talk) 18:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Affirmative defence is a Common Law concept, known throughout the English speaking world and Commonwealth. The common law is English law. I suggest that the spelling of defence should therefore follow the standard English spelling, rather than the American. 101.98.188.150 ( talk) 00:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meeksmatt123 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Meeksmatt123 ( talk) 14:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)