In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.

In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that their claim is true.

In a case involving fraud, the plaintiff must prove their case by clear and convincing evidence, which means that there is no serious or substantial doubt about the truth of their claim.

In a case involving negligence, the plaintiff must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the defendant was negligent.

In a case involving strict liability, the plaintiff must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the defendant is liable for their injuries.

In a case involving a breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the defendant breached the contract.

In a case involving a tort, the plaintiff must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the tort.

In a case involving a crime, the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.

In a case involving a constitutional issue, the government must prove that the law in question is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

In a case involving a statutory interpretation issue, the court will first apply the plain meaning rule, which means that the court will interpret the statute according to its plain meaning.

In a case involving a common law issue, the court will first look to see if there is any controlling precedent, which means that the court will follow the decision of a higher court in a similar case.

In a case involving a question of fact, the party who is asserting the fact must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the fact is true.

In a case involving a question of law, the party who is asserting the law must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that there is no reasonable doubt that the law is correct.

In a case involving a mixed question of law and fact, the party who is asserting the fact must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the fact is true.

In a case involving a question of foreign law, the party who is asserting the foreign law must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not that the foreign law is correct.