California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Payne v. State Personnel Bd., 162 Cal.App.2d 679, 328 P.2d 849 (Cal. App. 1958):
[162 Cal.App.2d 683] 'This provision only establishes a rebuttable presumption. It cuts off no defense, interposes no obstacle to a full contestation of all the issues, and takes no question of fact from either court or jury. At most, therefore, it is merely a rule of evidence. It does not abridge the right of trial by jury, or take away any of its incidents. Nor does it in anywise work a denial of due process of law. In principle it is not unlike the statutes in many of the states, whereby tax deeds are made prima facie evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings upon which their validity depends. Such statutes have been generally sustained. * * * An instructive case upon the subject is Holmes v. Hunt, 122 Mass. 505, 23 Am.Rep. 381, where, in an elaborate opinion by Chief Justice Gray, a statute making the report of an auditor prima facie evidence at the trial before a jury was held to be a legitimate exercise of legislative power over rules of evidence and in nowise inconsistent with the constitutional right of trial by jury.'
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.