2010 Nevada Code
Chapter 47 General Provisions; Judicial Notice; Presumptions
NRS 47.250 Disputable presumptions.

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)

In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained when a patron at an amusement park slipped and fell, where, before trial, plaintiff inquired of any prior accidents that had occurred at the park and defendant, at trial, testified that it was the policy of the park to destroy the records of first aid administered at the park each season, plaintiff was entitled to instruction that the jury could draw the inference that such evidence would have been unfavorable to defendant (see NRS 47.250) because deliberate destruction of records concerning prior accidents at the park before the statutes of limitations had expired on the incidents described in the records was willful suppression of evidence. Reingold v. Wet 'N Wild Nevada, Inc., 113 Nev. 967, 944 P.2d 800 (1997), cited,

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Nevada may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.