THIS IS WHAT ME MUST KNOW AND DO! 2.7 Rebutting presumed facts2719 Courts have expressed the burden of proof that the adversely affected party must satisfy in order to avoid an instruction that20 if the jury finds the basic fact it must also find the presumed fact, in a variety of ways: the evidence rebutting a presumption21 must be substantial, 28 credible, 29 positive, 30 or must be sufficient to raise an issue of fact for the jury 31 or put the issue20 Computerized Radiological Services, Inc. v Syntex Corp. (ED NY) 595 F Supp 1495, 40 UCCRS 49, affd in part and revd in part (CA2 NY) 786 F2d 72, 42 UCCRS 1656; Melville v American Home Assur. Co. (CA3 Pa) 584 F2d 1306, 3 Fed Rules Evid Serv 756; Amerada Hess Pipeline Corp. v Alaska Public Utilities Com. (Alaska) 711 P2d 1170; Holt Service Co. v Modlin, 163 Ga App 283, 293 SE2d 741; Babcock v Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (1st Dist) 83 Ill App 3d 919, 38 Ill Dec 841, 404 NE2d 265; Tietloff v Lift-A-Loft Corp. (Ind App) 441 NE2d 986; Finch v Hughes Aircraft Co., 57 Md App 190, 469 A2d 867, cert den 300 Md 88, 475 A2d 1200, reconsideration den 301 Md 41, 481 A2d 801 and cert den 469 US 1215, 84 L Ed 2d 336, 105 S Ct 1190, reh den 471 US 1049, 85 L Ed 2d 341, 105 S Ct 2043, later proceeding (CA FC) 926 F2d 1574, 17 USPQ2d 1914 and (criticized on other grounds by Newell v Richards, 83 Md App 371, 574 A2d 370) and (criticized on other grounds by Newell v Richards (Md App) 1990 Md App LEXIS 133).21 Maryland Casualty Co. v Williams (CA5 Miss) 377 F2d 389, 35 ALR3d 275; Kowalski v Wojtkowski, 19 NJ 247, 116 A2d 6, 53 ALR2d 556 (disapproved on other grounds by B. v O., 50 NJ 93, 232 A2d 401); Buhler v Maddison, 109 Utah 267, 176 P2d 118, 168 ALR 177.22 Adapted from Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, §190: Civil litigation23 Usery v Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 US 1, 49 L Ed 2d 752, 96 S Ct 2882, 1 Fed Rules Evid Serv 243 (superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v Office of Workers Compensation Program (CA7) 999 F2d 291); Ferry v Ramsey, 277 US 88, 72 L Ed 796, 48 S Ct 443.24 Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645, 31 L Ed 2d 551, 92 S Ct 1208, holding unconstitutional violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a statutory presumption that unmarried fathers are unsuitable and neglectful parents.25 Usery v Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 US 1, 49 L Ed 2d 752, 96 S Ct 2882, 1 Fed Rules Evid Serv 243 (superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v Office of Workers Compensation Program (CA7) 999 F2d 291); Dick v New York Life Ins. Co., 359 US 437, 3LEd2d935, 79SCt921;Mobile,J.&K.C.R.Co.vTurnipseed, 219US35, 55LEd78, 31SCt136;PizzavWolfCreekSkiDev.Corp. (Colo) 711 P2d 671, 55 ALR4th 607 (criticized on other grounds by Tri-Aspen Constr. Co. v Johnson (Colo) 714 P2d 484).26 MichaelH.vGeraldD., 491US110, 105LEd2d91, 109SCt2333,rehden 492US937, 106LEd2d634, 110SCt22andrehden 499US984, 113 L Ed 2d 739, 111 S Ct 1645 and motion den (US) 118 L Ed 2d 538, 112 S Ct 1931, later proceeding (App Div, 2d Dept) 604 NYS2d 573.27 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, §199.28 New York Life Ins. Co. v Gamer, 303 US 161, 82 L Ed 726, 58 S Ct 500, 114 ALR 1218; OBrien v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (CA8 Mo) 212 F2d 383, cert den 348 US 835, 99 L Ed 658, 75 S Ct 57; Harlem Taxicab Assn v Nemesh, 89 US App DC 123, 191 F2d 459; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v Sims, 208 Ark 1069, 189 SW2d 193; Carroll v Carroll (Ky) 251 SW2d 989; Anderson v Minneapolis, 258 Minn 221, 103 NW2d 397; Shell Oil Co. v Kapler, 235 Minn 292, 50 NW2d 707; Halloway v Halloway, 189 Miss 723, 198 So 738; Di Paoli v Prudential Ins. Co. (Mo App) 384 SW2d 861; Re Will of Blake, 21 NJ 50, 120 A2d 745; People v Richetti, 302 NY 290, 97 NE2d 908; Carson v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 165 Ohio St 238, 59 Ohio Ops 310,
Posted on: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 05:07:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015