What standard of evidence is used in suits related to Texas SB8?
<p>If someone sues another person over a claimed infringement of Texas' new professedly anti-abortion bill, what standard of evidence is used? The bill itself calls its enforcement provision a &quot;civil liability&quot;. Does that mean the claim needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, as it would in a criminal trial, or will the court look at the preponderance of the evidence as in most other trials about a civil liability?</p>

<p>The standard of proof for civil cases in Texas is generally &quot;preponderance of evidence&quot;. See <a href="https://www.txcourts.gov/media/943997/130928.pdf" rel="noreferrer">in re Steven Lipsky</a> for some discussion.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The  applicable  evidentiary  standard is  generally  determined  by
the  nature  of  the  case or particular claim.  Criminal cases
require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a near certainty, whereas
civil  cases  typically  apply  the  preponderance-of-the-evidence
standard,  that  is,  a  fact-finder’s determination  that  the
plaintiff’s  version  of  the  events  is  more  likely  than  not
true.   Some  civil claims, including some defamation claims, elevate
the evidentiary standard to require proof by clear- and-convincing
evidence.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>See <a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961" rel="noreferrer">Sec. 171.208</a> of SB8. There is no specific statutory specification of the evidentiary standard, therefore the standard is &quot;preponderance of evidence&quot; (compare <em>Lipsky</em>: the issue is that the statute refers to &quot;clear and specific evidence&quot; which is not defines in the statute or elsewhere, hence that lawsuit).</p>

texas abortion texas-sb8