reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
CA Ev Code § 646 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 3 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Producing Evidence|Section 646.

646.  (a) As used in this section, “defendant” includes any party against whom the res ipsa loquitur presumption operates.(b) The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.(c) If the evidence, or facts otherwise established, would support a res ipsa loquitur presumption and the defendant has introduced evidence which would support a finding that he was not negligent or that any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the occurrence, the court may, and upon request shall, instruct the jury to the effect that:(1) If the facts which would give rise to res ipsa loquitur presumption are found or otherwise established, the jury may draw the inference from such facts that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant; and(2) The jury shall not find that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant unless the jury believes, after weighing all the evidence in the case and drawing such inferences therefrom as the jury believes are warranted, that it is more probable than not that the occurrence was caused by some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant.(Added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 69.)
CA Ev Code § 647 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 3 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Producing Evidence|Section 647.

647.  The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.(Added by Stats. 1978, Ch. 528.)
CA Ev Code § 660 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 660.

660.  The presumptions established by this article, and all other rebuttable presumptions established by law that fall within the criteria of Section 605, are presumptions affecting the burden of proof.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 662 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 662.

662.  The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 663 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 663.

663.  A ceremonial marriage is presumed to be valid.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 664 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 664.

664.  It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed. This presumption does not apply on an issue as to the lawfulness of an arrest if it is found or otherwise established that the arrest was made without a warrant.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 665 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 665.

665.  A person is presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. This presumption is inapplicable in a criminal action to establish the specific intent of the defendant where specific intent is an element of the crime charged.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 666 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 666.

666.  Any court of this state or the United States, or any court of general jurisdiction in any other state or nation, or any judge of such a court, acting as such, is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. This presumption applies only when the act of the court or judge is under collateral attack.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 667 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 667.

667.  A person not heard from in five years is presumed to be dead.(Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 201, Sec. 1.)
CA Ev Code § 668 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 668.

668.  An unlawful intent is presumed from the doing of an unlawful act. This presumption is inapplicable in a criminal action to establish the specific intent of the defendant where specific intent is an element of the crime charged.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 669 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 669.

669.  (a) The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if:(1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity;(2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property;(3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and(4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.(b) This presumption may be rebutted by proof that:(1) The person violating the statute, ordinance, or regulation did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law; or(2) The person violating the statute, ordinance, or regulation was a child and exercised the degree of care ordinarily exercised by persons of his maturity, intelligence, and capacity under similar circumstances, but the presumption may not be rebutted by such proof if the violation occurred in the course of an activity normally engaged in only by adults and requiring adult qualifications.(Added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 650.)
CA Ev Code § 669.1 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 669.1.

669.1.  A rule, policy, manual, or guideline of state or local government setting forth standards of conduct or guidelines for its employees in the conduct of their public employment shall not be considered a statute, ordinance, or regulation of that public entity within the meaning of Section 669, unless the rule, manual, policy, or guideline has been formally adopted as a statute, as an ordinance of a local governmental entity in this state empowered to adopt ordinances, or as a regulation by an agency of the state pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), or by an agency of the United States government pursuant to the federal Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 5001) of Title 5 of the United States Code). This section affects only the presumption set forth in Section 669, and is not otherwise intended to affect the admissibility or inadmissibility of the rule, policy, manual, or guideline under other provisions of law.(Repealed and added by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1207, Sec. 2.)
CA Ev Code § 669.5 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 669.5.

669.5.  (a) Any ordinance enacted by the governing body of a city, county, or city and county which (1) directly limits, by number, the building permits that may be issued for residential construction or the buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes, or (2) changes the standards of residential development on vacant land so that the governing body’s zoning is rendered in violation of Section 65913.1 of the Government Code is presumed to have an impact on the supply of residential units available in an area which includes territory outside the jurisdiction of the city, county, or city and county.(b) With respect to any action which challenges the validity of an ordinance specified in subdivision (a) the city, county, or city and county enacting the ordinance shall bear the burden of proof that the ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare of the population of the city, county, or city and county.(c) This section does not apply to state and federal building code requirements or local ordinances which (1) impose a moratorium, to protect the public health and safety, on residential construction for a specified period of time, if, under the terms of the ordinance, the moratorium will cease when the public health or safety is no longer jeopardized by the construction, (2) create agricultural preserves under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code, or (3) restrict the number of buildable parcels or designate lands within a zone for nonresidential uses in order to protect agricultural uses as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 51201 of the Government Code or open-space land as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 65560 of the Government Code.(d) This section shall not apply to a voter approved ordinance adopted by referendum or initiative prior to the effective date of this section which (1) requires the city, county, or city and county to establish a population growth limit which represents its fair share of each year’s statewide population growth, or (2) which sets a growth rate of no more than the average population growth rate experienced by the state as a whole. Paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) does not apply to a voter-approved ordinance adopted by referendum or initiative which exempts housing affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or which otherwise provides low- and moderate-income housing sites equivalent to such an exemption.(Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 434, Sec. 2. (SB 732) Effective January 1, 2018.)
CA Ev Code § 670 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 5 - BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES|CHAPTER 3 - Presumptions and Inferences|ARTICLE 4 - Presumptions Affecting the Burden of Proof|Section 670.

670.  (a) In any dispute concerning payment by means of a check, a copy of the check produced in accordance with Section 1550 of the Evidence Code, together with the original bank statement that reflects payment of the check by the bank on which it was drawn or a copy thereof produced in the same manner, creates a presumption that the check has been paid.(b) As used in this section:(1) “Bank” means any person engaged in the business of banking and includes, in addition to a commercial bank, a savings and loan association, savings bank, or credit union.(2) “Check” means a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank, even though it is described by another term, such as “share draft” or “negotiable order of withdrawal.”(Amended by Stats. 2001, Ch. 854, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2002.)
CA Ev Code § 720 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 3 - Expert Witnesses|ARTICLE 1 - Expert Witnesses Generally|Section 720.

720.  (a) A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. Against the objection of a party, such special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education must be shown before the witness may testify as an expert.(b) A witness’ special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may be shown by any otherwise admissible evidence, including his own testimony.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 721 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 3 - Expert Witnesses|ARTICLE 1 - Expert Witnesses Generally|Section 721.

721.  (a) Subject to subdivision (b), a witness testifying as an expert may be cross-examined to the same extent as any other witness and, in addition, may be fully cross-examined as to (1) his or her qualifications, (2) the subject to which his or her expert testimony relates, and (3) the matter upon which his or her opinion is based and the reasons for his or her opinion.(b) If a witness testifying as an expert testifies in the form of an opinion, he or she may not be cross-examined in regard to the content or tenor of any scientific, technical, or professional text, treatise, journal, or similar publication unless any of the following occurs:(1) The witness referred to, considered, or relied upon such publication in arriving at or forming his or her opinion.(2) The publication has been admitted in evidence.(3) The publication has been established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice.If admitted, relevant portions of the publication may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 892, Sec. 11. Effective January 1, 1998.)
CA Ev Code § 722 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 3 - Expert Witnesses|ARTICLE 1 - Expert Witnesses Generally|Section 722.

722.  (a) The fact of the appointment of an expert witness by the court may be revealed to the trier of fact.(b) The compensation and expenses paid or to be paid to an expert witness by the party calling him is a proper subject of inquiry by any adverse party as relevant to the credibility of the witness and the weight of his testimony.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 723 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 3 - Expert Witnesses|ARTICLE 1 - Expert Witnesses Generally|Section 723.

723.  The court may, at any time before or during the trial of an action, limit the number of expert witnesses to be called by any party.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 730 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 3 - Expert Witnesses|ARTICLE 2 - Appointment of Expert Witness by Court|Section 730.

730.  When it appears to the court, at any time before or during the trial of an action, that expert evidence is or may be required by the court or by any party to the action, the court on its own motion or on motion of any party may appoint one or more experts to investigate, to render a report as may be ordered by the court, and to testify as an expert at the trial of the action relative to the fact or matter as to which the expert evidence is or may be required. The court may fix the compensation for these services, if any, rendered by any person appointed under this section, in addition to any service as a witness, at the amount as seems reasonable to the court.Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a person to perform any act for which a license is required unless the person holds the appropriate license to lawfully perform that act.(Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 295, Sec. 1.)
CA Ev Code § 731 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 3 - Expert Witnesses|ARTICLE 2 - Appointment of Expert Witness by Court|Section 731.

731.  (a) (1) In all criminal actions and juvenile court proceedings, the compensation fixed under Section 730 shall be a charge against the county in which the action or proceeding is pending and shall be paid out of the treasury of that county on order of the court.(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the expert is appointed for the court’s needs, the compensation shall be a charge against the court.(b) In any county in which the superior court so provides, the compensation fixed under Section 730 for medical experts appointed for the court’s needs in civil actions shall be a charge against the court. In any county in which the board of supervisors so provides, the compensation fixed under Section 730 for medical experts appointed in civil actions, for purposes other than the court’s needs, shall be a charge against and paid out of the treasury of that county on order of the court.(c) Except as otherwise provided in this section, in all civil actions, the compensation fixed under Section 730 shall, in the first instance, be apportioned and charged to the several parties in a proportion as the court may determine and may thereafter be taxed and allowed in like manner as other costs.(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 470, Sec. 8. (AB 1529) Effective January 1, 2013.)
CA Ev Code § 732 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 3 - Expert Witnesses|ARTICLE 2 - Appointment of Expert Witness by Court|Section 732.

732.  Any expert appointed by the court under Section 730 may be called and examined by the court or by any party to the action. When such witness is called and examined by the court, the parties have the same right as is expressed in Section 775 to cross-examine the witness and to object to the questions asked and the evidence adduced.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 733 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 3 - Expert Witnesses|ARTICLE 2 - Appointment of Expert Witness by Court|Section 733.

733.  Nothing contained in this article shall be deemed or construed to prevent any party to any action from producing other expert evidence on the same fact or matter mentioned in Section 730; but, where other expert witnesses are called by a party to the action, their fees shall be paid by the party calling them and only ordinary witness fees shall be taxed as costs in the action.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 760 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 1 - Definitions|Section 760.

760.  “Direct examination” is the first examination of a witness upon a matter that is not within the scope of a previous examination of the witness.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 761 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 1 - Definitions|Section 761.

761.  “Cross-examination” is the examination of a witness by a party other than the direct examiner upon a matter that is within the scope of the direct examination of the witness.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 762 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 1 - Definitions|Section 762.

762.  “Redirect examination” is an examination of a witness by the direct examiner subsequent to the cross-examination of the witness.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 763 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 1 - Definitions|Section 763.

763.  “Recross-examination” is an examination of a witness by a cross-examiner subsequent to a redirect examination of the witness.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 764 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 1 - Definitions|Section 764.

764.  A “leading question” is a question that suggests to the witness the answer that the examining party desires.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 765 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 2 - Examination of Witnesses|Section 765.

765.  (a) The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode of interrogation of a witness so as to make interrogation as rapid, as distinct, and as effective for the ascertainment of the truth, as may be, and to protect the witness from undue harassment or embarrassment.(b) With a witness under the age of 14 or a dependent person with a substantial cognitive impairment, the court shall take special care to protect him or her from undue harassment or embarrassment, and to restrict the unnecessary repetition of questions. The court shall also take special care to ensure that questions are stated in a form which is appropriate to the age or cognitive level of the witness. The court may, in the interests of justice, on objection by a party, forbid the asking of a question which is in a form that is not reasonably likely to be understood by a person of the age or cognitive level of the witness.(Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 823, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2005.)
CA Ev Code § 766 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 2 - Examination of Witnesses|Section 766.

766.  A witness must give responsive answers to questions, and answers that are not responsive shall be stricken on motion of any party.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)
CA Ev Code § 767 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 2 - Examination of Witnesses|Section 767.

767.  (a) Except under special circumstances where the interests of justice otherwise require:(1) A leading question may not be asked of a witness on direct or redirect examination.(2) A leading question may be asked of a witness on cross-examination or recross-examination.(b) The court may, in the interests of justice permit a leading question to be asked of a child under 10 years of age or a dependent person with a substantial cognitive impairment in a case involving a prosecution under Section 273a, 273d, 288.5, 368, or any of the acts described in Section 11165.1 or 11165.2 of the Penal Code.(Amended by Stats. 2004, Ch. 823, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2005.)
CA Ev Code § 768 (2021)
2021 California Code|Evidence Code - EVID|DIVISION 6 - WITNESSES|CHAPTER 5 - Method and Scope of Examination|ARTICLE 2 - Examination of Witnesses|Section 768.

768.  (a) In examining a witness concerning a writing, it is not necessary to show, read, or disclose to him any part of the writing.(b) If a writing is shown to a witness, all parties to the action must be given an opportunity to inspect it before any question concerning it may be asked of the witness.(Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.)