The jury charge and interrogatories regarding the burden of proof were not confusing and did not improperly shift the burden of proof to defendant. The court's charge presented a clear and correct statement of the law on burden of proof with respect to plaintiffs' allegation in the complaint that their substantial advancement of funds made to defendant was a construction loan, rather than an investment in the restaurant owned by the defendant, and properly placed the burden...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
