Rule 13.4.Conclusion
Rule 13. ARGUMENTS · Last amended 1997 · Last verified July 17, 2026
Full Text of Rule 13.4
Plain-English Summary
Rule 13.4 ties the right to open and close argument to who carries the burden of proof. In the ordinary civil case, that is the plaintiff, and the rule rewards that burden with the most valuable positions in argument — the plaintiff speaks first and speaks last, sandwiching the defendant’s argument in between.
That default flips in two situations: if the defendant puts on no evidence at all, or if the defendant concedes the plaintiff’s prima facie case outright. In either scenario, the defendant — not the plaintiff — gets to open and conclude instead. The logic tracks the same burden-of-proof principle from the other direction: once the defendant is not contesting the evidentiary record the plaintiff built, the case effectively turns on whatever the defendant is arguing, so the defendant gets the last word on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who normally gets to open and conclude argument in a civil case?
The plaintiff, as the party bearing the burden of proof.
When does the defendant get to open and conclude instead?
If the defendant introduces no evidence or admits a prima facie case.
Does this rule apply to all civil cases equally?
It applies where the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, which is the typical civil case posture.
Can both sides deliver the concluding argument?
No. The rule assigns the concluding argument to one side or the other, not both.
What triggers the shift away from the default plaintiff-opens-and-concludes rule?
Either the defendant introducing no evidence or the defendant admitting a prima facie case.
Amendment History
Amended effective October 9, 1997.