California Codes
Cal. Evidence Code § 601 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Alvarez v. Seaside Transp. Servs. LLC, 82 Cal. Comp. Cases 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
Alvarez v. Seaside Transp. Servs. LLC, 82 Cal. Comp. Cases 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “" ( Evid. Code, § 601.) All presumptions not declared by law to be conclusive are rebuttable.”
People v. Dubon, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6129 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “” A presumption is not evidence; rather, it 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.”
Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., 151 P.3d 1151 (Cal. 2007). “” (Evid. Code, § 601.) “A presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is a presumption established to implement ho public policy other than to facilitate the determination of the particular action in which the presumption is applied.”
In Re Heather B., 9 Cal. App. 4th 535 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). “21, subdivision (f), provides: "The failure of the *560 parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court-ordered treatment programs shall constitute prima facie evidence that return would be detrimental." (6a) Heather's father contends that this statutory provision…”
People v. Arriaga, 320 P.3d 1141 (Cal. 2014). “” (Evid. Code, § 601.) A presumption meant to implement a public policy determination affects the burden of proof.”
Simplon Ballpark, LLC v. Scull, 235 Cal. App. 4th 660 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “(Evid. Code, § 601.) Evidence Code section 602 states the following: “A statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence of another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption.”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 583 P.2d 151 (Cal. 1978). “Such is not the case, however, and the effect of the *123 section is not nearly so modest.”
Conti v. Bd. of Civil Serv. Commissioners, 461 P.2d 617 (Cal. 1969). “” (P. 50.) Although Wolstenholme supports respondents’ position, we believe that the presumption of prejudice there proclaimed should be reconsidered.”
People v. Lockwood, 214 Cal. App. 4th 91 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “We first turn to the nature of the presumption. “Every rebuttable presumption is either ‘(a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b) a presumption affecting the burden of proof.”
People v. Owen, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 472 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “) A presumption that operates to facilitate the determination of a particular action affects the burden of producing evidence (Evid.”
United Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Reeder Dev. Corp., 57 Cal. App. 3d 282 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). “(Evid. Code, § 601.) Using the criteria set *297 forth in Evidence Code sections 603 [3] and 605, [4] we conclude that the presumption created by section 1671 of the Civil Code is a presumption that affects the burden of producing evidence, rather than a presumption that affects…”
Farr v. Cnty. of Nevada, 187 Cal. App. 4th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “Distinguishing Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof from Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Producing Evidence We start with some general principles of law necessary as background for understanding how the Board treated the assessment hearings in this matter.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.