Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 47 - GENERAL PROVISIONS; JUDICIAL NOTICE; PRESUMPTIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250 (2026)

Disputable presumptions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 47.250  Disputable presumptions.  All other presumptions are disputable. The following are of that kind:

      1.  That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent.

      2.  That a person intends the ordinary consequences of that person’s voluntary act.

      3.  That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

      4.  That higher evidence would be adverse from inferior being produced.

      5.  That money paid by one to another was due to the latter.

      6.  That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter.

      7.  That things which a person possesses are owned by that person.

      8.  That a person is the owner of property from exercising acts of ownership over it, or from common reputation of that ownership.

      9.  That official duty has been regularly performed.

      10.  That a court or judge, acting as such, whether in this State or any other state or country, was acting in the lawful exercise of the court’s or judge’s jurisdiction.

      11.  That a judicial record, when not conclusive, does still correctly determine or set forth the rights of the parties.

      12.  That a writing is truly dated.

      13.  That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.

      14.  That a person not heard from in 3 years is dead.

      15.  That a child born in lawful wedlock is legitimate.

      16.  That the law has been obeyed.

      17.  That a trustee or other person, whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person, has actually conveyed to that person, when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or a successor in interest.

      18.  In situations not governed by the Uniform Commercial Code:

      (a) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid.

      (b) That private transactions have been fair and regular.

      (c) That the ordinary course of business has been followed.

      (d) That there was good and sufficient consideration for a written contract.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 779; A 1993, 2761)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2021 · leading case: Bass-Davis v. Davis, 134 P.3d 103 (Nev. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bass-Davis v. Davis, 134 P.3d 103 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 9× “We further concluded that Wet ’n Wild’s evidence destruction was “willful” as defined by NRS 47.250(3), thus creating a rebuttable presumption that the evidence “ ‘would be adverse if produced.”
Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass'n Servs., Inc., 437 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 4× “And third, even accepting for purposes of argument that the owner had to prove pre-sale payment to win, NRS 47.250(13) presumes "[t]hat a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.”
Yeager v. Harrah's Club, Inc., 897 P.2d 1093 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 6× “The at-will presumption is not enumerated under NRS 47.250 [3] as a disputable presumption.”
Leonard v. State, 17 P.3d 397 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “The district court ordered disclosure of the reports on Altamura during later proceedings.”
Langford v. State, 600 P.2d 231 (Nev. 1979). · cites it 5× “Notwithstanding this rejection, appellant argues the instruction is mandated by NRS 47.250(3) and (4), which establish the following disputable presumptions: 3.”
Edwards v. State, 524 P.2d 328 (Nev. 1974). · cites it 4× “NRS 47.250(1). Second, from testimony of three policemen, supported by a photograph, the jury could decide the loot was so far from the vent hole that Bolden could not merely have thrust himself up through the hole and stacked the clothing, as he testified.”
Vancheri v. GNLV CORP., 777 P.2d 366 (Nev. 1989). · cites it 2× “The at-will presumption is not enumerated in NRS 47.250 as a disputable presumption. This court has held, however, that NRS 47.”
Reingold v. Wet 'N Wild Nevada, Inc., 944 P.2d 800 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 4× “NRS 47.250(3) does provide for a disputable presumption "[t]hat evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.”
Hogan v. Warden, 916 P.2d 805 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 2× “Moreover, NRS 47.250(9), (10) and (16) specify, respectively, as disputable presumptions: "[t]hat official duty has been regularly performed;" "[t]hat a court or judge, acting as such, whether in this state or any other state or country, was acting in the lawful exercise of his…”
Sack v. Tomlin, 871 P.2d 298 (Nev. 1994). · cites it 2× “Whether the presumption that tenants in common hold equal interests or the presumption contained in NRS 47.250(2) bind appellant. It is a disputable presumption that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act.”
Privette v. Faulkner, 550 P.2d 404 (Nev. 1976). · cites it 4× “This experience translates into an identical probability which, together, form the foundation for the owner-driver presumption.”
State v. Webster, 726 P.2d 831 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 2× “NRS 47.250(9). The need for the state to prove those qualifications would be obviated.”
Show all 65 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(1) — 4 cases
Edwards v. State, 524 P.2d 328 (Nev. 1974). “NRS 47.250(1). Second, from testimony of three policemen, supported by a photograph, the jury could decide the loot was so far from the vent hole that Bolden could not merely have thrust himself up through the hole and stacked the clothing, as he testified.”
Zessman v. State, 573 P.2d 1174 (Nev. 1978).
Tweet v. Webster, 614 F. Supp. 1190 (D. Nev. 1985).
Patin v. Sheriff, 557 P.2d 708 (Nev. 1976).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(11) — 1 case
Rogers v. McDaniel, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (D. Nev. 2011).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(12) — 2 cases
Abbott v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 526 P.2d 75 (Nev. 1974).
Flangas v. State, 760 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1988).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(13) — 7 cases
Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass'n Servs., Inc., 437 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2019). “And third, even accepting for purposes of argument that the owner had to prove pre-sale payment to win, NRS 47.250(13) presumes "[t]hat a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.”
Zamarripa v. First Jud. Dist. Court, 747 P.2d 1386 (Nev. 1987).
Resources Grp., LLC Vs. Nevada Ass'n Serv.'s, Inc., 2019 NV 8 (Nev. 2019).
Rivera v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., 782 P.2d 1322 (Nev. 1989).
Resources Grp., LLC Vs. Nevada Ass'n Serv.'s, Inc., 2019 NV 8 (Nev. 2019).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(16) — 11 cases
Nationstar Mortg., LLC Vs. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 2017 NV 91 (Nev. 2017).
Tom v. Innovative Home Sys. (Nev. 2016).
Tom v. Innovative Home Sys., 2016 NV 15 (Nev. 2016).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Nevada Prop. Holdings LLC (Nev. 2017).
HSBC Bank USA v. Premier One Holdings, Inc. (Nev. 2017).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(2) — 1 case
Sack v. Tomlin, 871 P.2d 298 (Nev. 1994). “Whether the presumption that tenants in common hold equal interests or the presumption contained in NRS 47.250(2) bind appellant. It is a disputable presumption that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(3) — 21 cases
Bass-Davis v. Davis, 134 P.3d 103 (Nev. 2006). “We further concluded that Wet ’n Wild’s evidence destruction was “willful” as defined by NRS 47.250(3), thus creating a rebuttable presumption that the evidence “ ‘would be adverse if produced.”
Langford v. State, 600 P.2d 231 (Nev. 1979). “Notwithstanding this rejection, appellant argues the instruction is mandated by NRS 47.250(3) and (4), which establish the following disputable presumptions: 3.”
Reingold v. Wet 'N Wild Nevada, Inc., 944 P.2d 800 (Nev. 1997). “NRS 47.250(3) does provide for a disputable presumption "[t]hat evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.”
Bohlmann v. Printz, 96 P.3d 1155 (Nev. 2004).
Mdb Trucking, LLC Vs. Versa Prods. Co., Inc. c/w 75319/75321/76395/76396/76397, 2020 NV 72 (Nev. 2020).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(4) — 3 cases
Langford v. State, 600 P.2d 231 (Nev. 1979). “Notwithstanding this rejection, appellant argues the instruction is mandated by NRS 47.250(3) and (4), which establish the following disputable presumptions: 3.”
Edwards v. State, 524 P.2d 328 (Nev. 1974). “NRS 47.250(1). Second, from testimony of three policemen, supported by a photograph, the jury could decide the loot was so far from the vent hole that Bolden could not merely have thrust himself up through the hole and stacked the clothing, as he testified.”
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Vs. 4029 Grant Hill Ave Tr. (Nev. 2019).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250(9) — 6 cases
Hogan v. Warden, 916 P.2d 805 (Nev. 1996). “Moreover, NRS 47.250(9), (10) and (16) specify, respectively, as disputable presumptions: "[t]hat official duty has been regularly performed;" "[t]hat a court or judge, acting as such, whether in this state or any other state or country, was acting in the lawful exercise of his…”
State v. Webster, 726 P.2d 831 (Nev. 1986). “NRS 47.250(9). The need for the state to prove those qualifications would be obviated.”
Sutro Tunnel Co. v. Lipscomb, 720 P.2d 1204 (Nev. 1986).
Paine v. State, 877 P.2d 1025 (Nev. 1994).
Nevada Tax Comm'n v. Sw. Gas Corp., 497 P.2d 308 (Nev. 1972).
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.