NRS
47.200 Determination on evidence of presumed fact: Where basic facts
established. When reasonable minds
would necessarily agree that the evidence renders the existence of the basic
facts more probable than not, but direct evidence is introduced contrary to the
existence of the presumed fact, the question of the existence of the presumed
fact is determined as follows:
1. If reasonable minds would necessarily
agree that the direct evidence renders the nonexistence of the presumed fact
more probable than not, the judge shall direct the jury to find against the
existence of the presumed fact.
2. If reasonable minds would necessarily
agree that the direct evidence does not render the nonexistence of the presumed
fact more probable than not, the judge shall direct the jury to find in favor
of the presumed fact.
3. If reasonable minds would not
necessarily agree as to whether the direct evidence renders the nonexistence of
the presumed fact more probable than not, the judge shall submit the matter to
the jury with an instruction to find in favor of the existence of the presumed
fact unless they find from the direct evidence that its nonexistence is more
probable than its existence, in which event they should find against its
existence.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
778)
Notes of Decisions
Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass'n Servs., Inc., 437 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 6× “" Under NRS 47.200, this was evidence enough to establish timely payment or, at minimum, to make timely payment a question of fact for the trial court, not of law for this court, to decide.”
Privette v. Faulkner, 550 P.2d 404 (Nev. 1976).
· cites it 4× “Presumptions are no more than rules of evidence predicated on probability and general experience, which, in the present context, is to say that experience has shown that the owner of a vehicle if present in the vehicle is likely to be its driver.”
Jaramillo Vs. Ramos, M.D., 2020 NV 17 (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 47.200 (listing different jury instructions depending on the strength of the direct evidence); see also Butler v.”
Resources Grp., LLC Vs. Nevada Ass'n Serv.'s, Inc., 2019 NV 8 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 8× “" Under NRS 47.200, this was evidence enough to establish timely payment or, at minimum, to make timely payment a question of fact for the trial court, not of law for this court, to decide.”
Resources Grp., LLC Vs. Nevada Ass'n Serv.'s, Inc., 2019 NV 8 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 4× “" Under NRS 47.200, this was evidence enough to establish timely payment or, at minimum, to make timely payment a question of fact for the trial court, not of law for this court, to decide.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.200(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.200(3) — 1 case
Privette v. Faulkner, 550 P.2d 404 (Nev. 1976).
“Presumptions are no more than rules of evidence predicated on probability and general experience, which, in the present context, is to say that experience has shown that the owner of a vehicle if present in the vehicle is likely to be its driver.”
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.