Black’s Law Dictionary 6th
Ed.
Preesumptio fortior A strong presumption; a presumption of fact entitled to great weight. One which determines the tribunal in its belief of an alleged fact, without, however, excluding the belief of the possibility of its being otherwise; the effect of which is to shift the burden of producing evidence to the opposite party, and, if this proof be not made, the presumption is held for truth. See Presumption.
Page 1174
Preesumptio juris et de jure. A presumption of law and of right; a presumption which the law will not suffer to be contradicted; a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption. Page 1175
Presumption. An. inference in favor of a particular
fact.
A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted. Van Wart v. Cook, Okl.App., 557 P.2d 1161, 1163. A legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence. Port Terminal & Warehousing Co. v. John S. James Co., D.C.Ga., 92 F.R.D.
100, 106.
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. A presumption is not evidence." A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable. Every rebuttable presumption is either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or
(b) a presumption affecting the burden of proof. Calif.Evid.Code, § 600.
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not
shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. Federal Evidence Rule 301. Page 1185
See what the courts of ruled as to FRE 301
To establish a "presumption" is to say that a finding of the predicate fact (here, the prima facie case) produces "a required conclusion in the absence of explanation" (here, the finding of unlawful discrimination). Thus, the ... presumption places upon the defendant the burden of producing an explanation 507*507 to rebut the prima facie case.... "If the defendant carries this burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted," St.
Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 US 502 - Supreme Court 1993
"Nunley argues that Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence should govern her showing of non-receipt of notice of entry. [of judgment]. Under the common law mailbox rule, proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is received by the
addressee.[¶] Under the so-called "bursting bubble" approach to presumptions, a presumption disappears where rebuttal evidence is presented. [¶] Regardless of the quantum of evidence necessary to rebut the presumption, the movant still bears the burden of proving non-receipt. Fed.R.Evid. 301 ("risk of nonpersuasion ... remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast"). Even after the "bubble" of presumption has "burst," the factual question of receipt remains and may
be decided in favor of receipt by a fact finder who may choose to draw inferences of receipt from the evidence of mailing, in spite of contrary evidence." Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F. 3d 792 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1995
"At least three circuits, including this one, have concluded that Federal Rule of Evidence 301adopted
the bursting-bubble view of presumptions. An exception to this application of Rule 301 occurs when "the facts with regard to an issue lie peculiarly in the knowledge of one party," and it would therefore be "particularly onerous" to require the other party to bear the burden of persuasion on the issue." Allseas Maritime, SA v. M/V MIMOSA, 812 F. 2d 243 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1987
"Considered in view of Rule 301, a presumption can be thought of as creating a prima facie case of the presumed fact. The reason for the presumption is that a party has direct evidence of one fact from which a second fact logically follows. The presumption merely allows the court to infer the second fact from evidence of the first. Because neither the Rule nor the presumption alters the normal allocation of the burden of persuasion, no
evidentiary justification appears for the rule that a mere denial should be per se inadequate. On the contrary, whether a party's evidence is sufficient to rebut a presumption is a matter for the determination of the fact-finder who must consider issues such as credibility, the circumstances surrounding the giving of the notice, and the applicable burden of persuasion. Linder v. Trump's Castle Associates, 155 BR 102 - Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 1993"
