{"id":41,"date":"2018-04-12T08:56:28","date_gmt":"2018-04-12T08:56:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/?page_id=41"},"modified":"2018-04-15T11:07:40","modified_gmt":"2018-04-15T11:07:40","slug":"legal-nothing-more-than-company-policy","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/legal-nothing-more-than-company-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"LEGAL &#8211; Nothing more than Company Policy &#8211; Jurisdiction!"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul>\n<li>FACTO. In fact; by an act; by the act or fact. Ipso facto, by the act itself ; by the mere effect of a fact, without anything superadded, or any proceeding upon it to give it effect.<\/li>\n<li>FACT. A thing done; an action performed or an incident transpiring; an event or circumstance; an actual occurrence. An actual happening in time or space or an event mental or physical.<\/li>\n<li>PROOF. The effect of evidence; the establishment of a fact by evidence. Any fact or circumstance which leads the mind to the affirmative or negative of any proposition.. The conviction or persuasion of the mind of a judge or jury, by the exhibition of evidence, of the reality of a fact alleged.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>PRIMA_FACIE, Lat. At first sight; on the first<br \/>\nappearance; on the face of it; so far as can be<br \/>\njudged from the first disclosure; presumably;<br \/>\na fact presumed to be true unless disproved by<br \/>\nsome evidence to the contrary. State ex rel. Herbert<br \/>\nv. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596,<br \/>\n599.<br \/>\nPRIMA FACIE CASE. Such as will suffice until<br \/>\ncontradicted and overcome by other evidence. Pacific<br \/>\nTelephone &amp; Telegraph Co. v. Wallace, 158<br \/>\nOr. 210, 75 P.2d 942, 947. A case which has proceeded<br \/>\nupon sufficient proof to that stage where<br \/>\nit will support finding if evidence to contrary is<br \/>\ndisregarded. In re Hoagland&#8217;s Estate, 126 Neb.<br \/>\n377, 253 N.W. 416.<br \/>\nA litigating party is said to have a prima facie case<br \/>\nwhen the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his<br \/>\nopponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case,<br \/>\nthen, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and<br \/>\ncan be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on<br \/>\nthe other side. In some cases the only question to be considered<br \/>\nis whether there is a prima facie case or no. Thus<br \/>\na grand jury are bound to find a true bill of indictment, if<br \/>\nthe evidence before them creates a prima facie case against<br \/>\nthe accused; and for this purpose, therefore, it is not necessary<br \/>\nfor them to hear the evidence for the defense. Mozley<br \/>\n&amp; Whitley. And see State v. Hardelein, 169 Mo. 579,<br \/>\n70 S.W. 130; State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216, 9 N.W. 698.<br \/>\nPRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. Evidence good and<br \/>\nsufficient on its face; such evidence as, in the<br \/>\njudgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a<br \/>\ngiven fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party&#8217;s claim or defense, and which if not<br \/>\nrebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.<br \/>\nState v. Burlingame, 146 Mo. 207, 48 S.W. 72.<br \/>\nEvidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact<br \/>\nuntil contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Dodson<br \/>\nv. Watson, 110 Tex. 355, 220 S.W. 771, 772, 11 A.L.R.<br \/>\n583. Evidence which, standing alone and unexplained,<br \/>\nwould maintain the proposition and warrant the conclusion<br \/>\nto support which it is introduced. Gilmore v. Modern<br \/>\nBrotherhood of America, 186 Mo.App. 445, 171 S.W. 629,<br \/>\n632. An inference or presumption of law, affirmative or<br \/>\nnegative of a fact, in the absence of proof, or until proof<br \/>\ncan be obtained or produced to overcome the inference.<br \/>\nPeople v. Thacher, 1 Thomp. &amp; C., N.Y., 167. A litigating<br \/>\nparty is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence<br \/>\nin his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be<br \/>\ncalled on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one<br \/>\nwhich is established by sufficient evidence, and can be<br \/>\noverthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the<br \/>\nother side. Mozley &amp; Whitley. State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn.<br \/>\n216, 9 N.W. 698. A &#8220;prima facie case&#8221; is one which is<br \/>\napparently established by evidence adduced by plaintiff in<br \/>\nsupport of his case up to the time such evidence stands<br \/>\nunexplained and uncontradicted. Morrison v. Flowers, 308<br \/>\nIll. 189, 139 N.E. 10, 12. A &#8220;prima facie case&#8221; is one in<br \/>\nwhich the evidence in favor of a proposition is sufficient to<br \/>\nsupport a finding in its favor, if all of the evidence to the<br \/>\ncontrary be disregarded. Schallert v. Boggs, Tex.Civ.App.,<br \/>\n204 S.W. 1061, 1062. See, also, Presumptive Evidence.<\/p>\n<p>PRESUMPTION. Of fact. An inference affirmative<br \/>\nor disaffirmative of the truth or falsehood of<br \/>\nany proposition or fact drawn by a process of<br \/>\nprobable reasoning in the absence of actual certainty<br \/>\nof its truth or falsehood, or until such certainty<br \/>\ncan be ascertained. Best, Pres. \u00a7 3.<\/p>\n<p>Of Law. A rule of law that courts and judges<br \/>\nshall draw a particular inference from a particular<br \/>\nfact, or from particular evidence, unless and until<br \/>\nthe truth of such inference is disproved. Steph.<br \/>\nEv. 4; Lane v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 132 Mo. 4,<br \/>\n33 S.W. 645. A rule which, in certain cases, either<br \/>\nforbids or dispenses with any ulterior inquiry. 1<br \/>\nGreenl.<\/p>\n<p>Presumptions are divided into prcesumptiones<br \/>\njuris et de jure, otherwise called &#8220;irrebuttable<br \/>\npresumptions,&#8221; (often, but not necessarily, fictitious,)<br \/>\nwhich the law will not suffer to be rebutted<br \/>\nby any counter-evidence; as, that an infant under<br \/>\nseven years is not responsible for his actions;<br \/>\nprcesumptiones juris tantum, which hold good in<br \/>\nthe absence of counter-evidence, but against which<br \/>\ncounter-evidence may be admitted; and prcesumptiones<br \/>\nhominis, which are not necessarily conclusive,<br \/>\nthough no proof to the contrary be adduced.<br \/>\nMozley &amp; Whiteley.<br \/>\nA natural presumption is that species of presumption,<br \/>\nor process of probable reasoning, which<br \/>\nis exercised by persons of ordinary intelligence,<br \/>\nin inferring one fact from another, without reference<br \/>\nto any technical rules. Otherwise called<br \/>\n&#8220;prcesumptio hominis.&#8221; Burrill, Circ. Ev. 11, 12,<br \/>\n22, 24.<br \/>\nLegitimate presumptions have been denominated<br \/>\n&#8220;violent&#8221; or &#8220;probable,&#8221; according to the<br \/>\namount of weight which attaches to them. Such<br \/>\npresumptions as are drawn from inadequate<br \/>\ngrounds are termed &#8220;light&#8221; or &#8220;rash&#8221; presumptions.<br \/>\nBrown.<\/p>\n<p>Presumptions are evidence or have the effect of<br \/>\nevidence.<\/p>\n<p>Presumptions are not &#8220;evidence&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>A presumption is a substitute for evidence,<\/p>\n<p>REDRESS. The receiving satisfaction for an injury<br \/>\nsustained.<\/p>\n<p>REMEDY. The means by which a right is enforced<br \/>\nor the violation of a right is prevented, redressed,<br \/>\nor compensated. Remedies are of four<br \/>\nkinds: (1) By act of the party injured, the principal<br \/>\nof which are defense, recaption, distress, entry,<br \/>\nabatement, and seizure; (2) by operation of<br \/>\nlaw, as in the case of retainer and remitter; (3)<br \/>\nby agreement between the parties, e. g., by accord<br \/>\nand satisfaction and arbitration; and (4) by judicial<br \/>\nremedy,<\/p>\n<p>Strictly speaking, &#8220;remedy&#8221; is no part of the action, but<br \/>\nis the result thereof, the object for which the action is presented,<br \/>\nthe end to which all the litigation is directed.<br \/>\nMathews v. Sniggs, 75 Okl. 108, 182 P. 703, 707.<br \/>\nRemedies for the redress of injuries are either public, by<br \/>\nindictment, when the injury to the individual or to his<br \/>\nproperty affects the public, or private, when &#8216;the tort is<br \/>\nonly injurious to the individual.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>FACTO. In fact; by an act; by the act or fact. Ipso facto, by the act itself ; by the mere effect of a fact, without anything superadded, or any proceeding upon it to give it effect. FACT. A thing &hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/legal-nothing-more-than-company-policy\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-41","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/41","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/41\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":268,"href":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/41\/revisions\/268"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/publicnotices.community\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}