Editing Presumption (section)

==Specific presumptions==
{{primary sources|section|date=May 2023}}
A number of presumptions are found in most [[common law]] jurisdictions. Examples of these presumptions include:
*The [[presumption of death]]. A person who has been absent for seven years without explanation and "gone to parts unknown" is presumed dead at common law.<ref>''Prudential Insurance Comp. v. Moore'', 197 Ind. 50, 149 N.E. 718 (Ind. 1925)</ref> The time period it takes for the presumption to arise has often been modified by statute.<ref>E.g. Ind. Code § 29-2-5-1.</ref>
*The [[presumption of sanity]]. A person who faces criminal trial is presumed sane until the opposite is proved. Similarly, a person is presumed to have testamentary capacity until there is evidence to undermine that presumption.
*The [[presumption of innocence]], which holds that the prosecution bears the burden of proof in a criminal case with the result that the accused may be acquitted without putting forward any evidence.
*The [[presumption of legitimacy]] or [[presumption of paternity]], which presumes that a husband is the [[biological|legal father]] of a child born to his wife during the marriage, or within nine months after the marriage is ended by death, [[legal separation]], or [[divorce]].<ref>E.g. Ind. Code § 31-14-7-1.</ref> Some jurisdictions also hold that a presumption of paternity arises when a father accepts a child into his home, or publicly represents that he is the child's father.<ref>E.g. Ind. Code § 31-14-7-2.</ref>
*A [[presumption of survivorship]] has referred to a number of different presumptions. The term is sometimes used to refer to presumptions that one or another of two persons lived the longer when [[simultaneous death|they died together in the same accident]].<ref>[[Black's Law Dictionary]] (5th. ed., 1979; West Publishing Co., {{ISBN|0-8299-2041-2}}), p. 1068, "Presumption of survivorship"</ref> The presumption that two or more people who establish a [[joint account]] intend for the survivors to have the assets put into the fund upon the death of one of the joint account holders has also been called the "presumption of survivorship".<ref>E.g. ''Matter of Estate of Banko'', 622 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 1993)</ref>
*The [[presumption of mailing]] presumes that a properly addressed letter delivered to the post office or a [[common carrier]] was in fact delivered and received by the addressee.<ref>E.g. ''U-Haul Co. of Indiana, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue'', 896 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind.Tax 2008)</ref>
*The presumption of [[fraud]] or [[undue influence]] arises where a person in a position of [[Trust (social sciences)|trust]] over another, such as a [[guardianship|guardian]] or the holder of a [[power of attorney]] applies the other person's assets to their own benefit.<ref>''In re Estate of Compton'', 919 N.E.2d 1181, (Ind.Ct.App. 2010), trans. denied</ref>
*The [[presumption of validity]] is another way of expressing a burden of proof: the official acts of courts are presumed valid, and those who would challenge them must overcome this presumption.<ref>''Monon Corp. v. Townsend, Yosha, Cline & Price'', 678 N.E.2d 807, 809 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997).</ref> This is also termed the [[presumption of regularity]].<ref>Cooper, Simon & Murphy, Peter & Beaumont, John. Cases & Materials on Evidence. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 1994. p. 86</ref>
*The [[presumption of advancement]] in relation to transfers from husbands to wives and from fathers to children.
*In commercial contracts, there is a presumption that parties to a contract intend all disputes between them to be determined within the same forum.<ref>Peacock, N, [https://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2015/03/19/fiona-trust-v-privalov-in-the-high-court/ Fiona Trust v Privalov in the High Court], ''Herbert Smith Freehills'', published 19 March 2015, accessed 18 January 2024</ref> This presumption is also known as "one-stop adjudication" and reflects the belief that contracts are entered into by [[rational]] business parties.<ref>Hart, S., [https://www.rpc.co.uk/perspectives/commercial-disputes/one-stop-adjudication-the-rational-approach-to-dispute-resolution/ One-stop adjudication – the rational approach to dispute resolution], ''Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP'', published 10 June 2015, accessed 18 January 2024</ref> A German ''Bundesgerichtshof'' ([[Federal Court of Justice]]) decision made on 27 February 1970 thought there was "every reason to presume that reasonable parties will wish to have the relationships created by their contract and the claims arising therefrom ... decided by the same tribunal and not by two different tribunals", and the [[Federal Court of Australia]] in ''Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd.'' (2006) referred to a "sensible commercial presumption that the parties did not intend the inconvenience of having possible disputes from their transaction being heard in two places". The [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]] in ''Premium Nafta Products Ltd (20th Defendant) and Ors v. Fili Shipping Company Ltd and Ors'' (2007) noted that "this approach to the issue of construction is now firmly embedded as part of the [[international trade law|law of international commerce]]" and endorsed a ruling the [[Court of Appeal (England and Wales)|Court of Appeal]] made on this basis, stating that this presumption "must now be accepted as part of our <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[England and Wales]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> law too".<ref>House of Lords, [https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/40.html Premium Nafta Products Limited (20th Defendant) and others (Respondents) v. Fili Shipping Company Limited (14th Claimant) and others (Appellants)], UKHL 40, delivered 17 October 2007, accessed 18 January 2024</ref>
*In the [[law of the United States]], the [[presumption of constitutionality]] presumes that all statutes are drafted in accordance with [[Constitution of the United States|Federal]] and [[State constitution (United States)|state]] constitutional requirements. The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of proof, and any doubts are resolved against that party. If there are two reasonable interpretations of a statute, one of which is constitutional and the other not, the courts choose the path that permits upholding the statute.<ref>''Boehm v. Town of St. John'', 675 N.E.2d 318 (Ind.1996)</ref>