conflict between presumption in Idaho

1992Co., 61 Idaho 484 , 104 P.2d 1110 (1940), it was held that if reasonable minds might differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence opposing the presumption, the matter should be submitted to the jury, and the jury informed as to the presumption, quoting from Geist v. Moore, supra, as follows: and in the following cases this court had definitely committed itself to the doctrine that where there is a conflict between the presumption and contrary evidence, from which reasonable minds might draw different conclusions, it is proper to instruct the jury as to the presumptions, (citing c

1992Co., 61 Idaho 484 , 104 P.2d 1110 (1940), it was held that if reasonable minds might differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence opposing the presumption, the matter should be submitted to the jury, and the jury informed as to the presumption, quoting from Geist v. Moore, supra, as follows: and in the following cases this court had definitely committed itself to the doctrine that where there is a conflict between the presumption and contrary evidence, from which reasonable minds might draw different conclusions, it is proper to instruct the jury as to the presumptions, (citing c

1970Co., 61 Idaho 484 , 104 P.2d 1110 (1940), it was held that if reasonable minds might differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence opposing the presumption, the matter should be submitted to the jury, and the jury informed as to the presumption, quoting from Geist v. Moore, supra [ 58 Idaho 149 , 70 P.2d 403 ], as follows: ‘ * * * and in the following cases this court had definitely committed itself to the doctrine that where there is a conflict between the presumption and contrary evidence, from which reasonable minds might draw different conclusions, it is proper to instruct the

1970Co., 61 Idaho 484 , 104 P.2d 1110 (1940), it was held that if reasonable minds might differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence opposing the presumption, the matter should be submitted to the jury, and the jury informed as to the presumption, quoting from Geist v. Moore, supra [ 58 Idaho 149 , 70 P.2d 403 ], as follows: ‘ * * * and in the following cases this court had definitely committed itself to the doctrine that where there is a conflict between the presumption and contrary evidence, from which reasonable minds might draw different conclusions, it is proper to instruct the

1992Co. of America, 91 Idaho at 25 , 415 P.2d at 311.

1966While the view that a presumption is to be afforded some evidentiary weight in the scales of justice, and is to be considered as more than a procedural device of shifting the “burden of persuasion”, has been criticized by authors, 3 yet there is very respectable authority to sustain this view, as set out in the annotations cited in the footnote below. 4 Perhaps one of the best statements of the principles involved is to be found in Burrier v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., of New York, 63 Wash.2d 266 , 387 P.2d 58 ; 65, 66, (1963): “ * * * Although, perhaps, it can be correctly said that, in a maj

1966While the view that a presumption is to be afforded some evidentiary weight in the scales of justice, and is to be considered as more than a procedural device of shifting the “burden of persuasion”, has been criticized by authors, 3 yet there is very respectable authority to sustain this view, as set out in the annotations cited in the footnote below. 4 Perhaps one of the best statements of the principles involved is to be found in Burrier v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., of New York, 63 Wash.2d 266 , 387 P.2d 58 ; 65, 66, (1963): “ * * * Although, perhaps, it can be correctly said that, in a maj

1940A. This court in Geist v. Moore, 58 Ida. 149 , 70 Pac. (2d) 403 , clarified and announced the rule as to when it is proper to instruct the jury as to the presumption, as follows: “and in the following cases this court had definitely committed itself to the doctrine that where there is a conflict between the presumption and contrary evidence, from which reasonable minds might draw different conclusions, it is proper to instruct the jury as to the presumption.” (Packard v. O’Neil, 45 Ida. 427 , 262 Pac. 881 , 56 A. L.

1940A. This court in Geist v. Moore, 58 Ida. 149 , 70 Pac. (2d) 403 , clarified and announced the rule as to when it is proper to instruct the jury as to the presumption, as follows: “and in the following cases this court had definitely committed itself to the doctrine that where there is a conflict between the presumption and contrary evidence, from which reasonable minds might draw different conclusions, it is proper to instruct the jury as to the presumption.” (Packard v. O’Neil, 45 Ida. 427 , 262 Pac. 881 , 56 A. L.

1937(State v. Boykin, 40 Ida. 536 , 234 Pac. 157 ; State v. Farnsworth, 51 Ida. 768 , 10 Pac. (2d) 295 .) *356 By assignment of error No. 21, appellant contends that there was a conflict between instruction No. 19 and No. 20, given: “INSTRUCTION No. 19.

1937(State v. Boykin, 40 Ida. 536 , 234 Pac. 157 ; State v. Farnsworth, 51 Ida. 768 , 10 Pac. (2d) 295 .) *356 By assignment of error No. 21, appellant contends that there was a conflict between instruction No. 19 and No. 20, given: “INSTRUCTION No. 19.

1937(State v. Boykin, 40 Ida. 536 , 234 Pac. 157 ; State v. Farnsworth, 51 Ida. 768 , 10 Pac. (2d) 295 .) *356 By assignment of error No. 21, appellant contends that there was a conflict between instruction No. 19 and No. 20, given: “INSTRUCTION No. 19.

1937(State v. Boykin, 40 Ida. 536 , 234 Pac. 157 ; State v. Farnsworth, 51 Ida. 768 , 10 Pac. (2d) 295 .) *356 By assignment of error No. 21, appellant contends that there was a conflict between instruction No. 19 and No. 20, given: “INSTRUCTION No. 19.