Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In law, a presumption is an "inference of a particular fact". [1] There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions. [2]: 25 A rebuttable presumption will either shift the burden of production (requiring the disadvantaged party to produce some evidence to the contrary) or the burden of proof (requiring the disadvantaged party to show the ...
Rebuttable presumptions of fact, arising during the course of a trial as a result of specific factual situations (for example that the accused has taken flight), [3] are common; an opening presumption of guilt based on the mere fact that the suspect has been charged is considered illegitimate in many countries, [4] and contrary to international ...
In the doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history estoppel creates only a rebuttable presumption against infringement. Holmes Group v. Vornado: 535 U.S. 826: 2002: Patent issues raised in counterclaim do not give rise to Federal Circuit jurisdiction Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. 545 U.S. 193: 2005: Related to Research exemption.
The rebuttable presumption establishes a burden of proof; but the burden may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The civil standard of proof is "a balance of probabilities", while the criminal standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". Here, different presumptions will apply, according to the class of agreement.
The rule of sevens, in English common law, establishes three age brackets for determining a young person's capacity to be responsible for torts and crimes. Children under the age of seven cannot be held to have capacity, while there is a rebuttable presumption that a minor aged 7 to 14 lacks capacity; for those aged 14 to 21, there is a rebuttable presumption of capacity. [1]
There is a rebuttable presumption that the possessor of property also has the right of possession, and evidence to the contrary may be offered to establish who has the legal right of possession to determine who should have actual possession, which may include evidence of ownership (without assignment of the right of possession) or evidence of a ...
She did not rebut the presumption. The defence to this action on the alleged contract is that the defendant, the husband, entered into no contract with his wife, and for the determination of that it is necessary to remember that there are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law.
The presumption was conclusive, prohibiting the prosecution from offering evidence that the child had the capacity to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of what they had done. Children aged 7–13 were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that ...