Words & phrases: "Judicial Notice"
Last updated: July 19, 1999
[From Words and Phrases, vol. 23A, "Estoppel-Kyposis", p. 23-27 (West, 1967)].
"Judicial notice" is a means of proof before a fact finding tribunal. Platt v. City of Philadelphia, 133 A.2d 860, 864, 189 Pa.Super. 486.
"Judicial notice" is a form of proof in that it dispenses a party from producing evidence, and taking of Judicial notice of something should be requested by counsel. Bear v. Kenosha County, 125 N.W.2d 375, 379, 22 Wis.2d 92.
"Judicial notice" is method of dispensing with necessity for taking proof. State ex rel. Schmittou v. City of Nashville, 345 S.W.2d 874, 883, 208 Tenn. 290.
When a matter is "judicially noticed", it is taken as true without offering of evidence by party who should ordinarily have done so. Geer v. Birmingham, D.C.Iowa, 88 F.Supp. 189, 228.
"Judicial notice" dispenses with necessity of establishing a fact by evidence which fact may be safely assumed to be within the knowledge of the court. Scheutler v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 169 S.W.2d 359, 365, 350 Mo. 886.
The doctrine of "judicial notice" has no application to legislative activities, for legislative notice is far broader than judicial notice. People v. Goldberger, 163 N.Y.S. 663, 666.
The taking of "judicial notice" of a matter is not necessarily more than a "prima facie" recognition of the matter, and does not import that the matter is indisputable. Scheufler v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 169 S.W.2d 359, 365, 350 Mo. 886.
The Supreme Court takes "judicial notice" that the Adjutant General is the principal staff officer of the organized militia of the state. Wright v. White, 110 P.2d 948, 954, 166 Or. 136, 135 A.L.R. 1.
"Judicial notice" is a judicial short cut, a doing away, in the case of evidence, with the formal necessity for evidence, because there is no real necessity for it. Varcoe v. Lee, 181 P. 223, 226, 180 Cal. 338.
"What is known need not be proved." Peterson v. Standard Oil Co., 106 P. 337, 339, 55 Or. 511, Ann.Cas.1912A, 625, quoting and adopting definition in Town of North Hempstead v. Gregory, 65 N.Y.S. 867, 53 App.Div. 350, and citing Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37, 23 L.Ed. 200; Wynehamer v. People, 13 N.Y. 378.
Proof by evidence may be dispensed with where the court is justified by general considerations in declaring truth of proposition without requiring evidence from the party, which is the process most commonly meant by the term "judicial notice". First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Fishman, 217 N.E.2d 60, 66, 7 Ohio Misc. 130.
"Judicial notice" merely means that the court can consider a prior judgment between certain parties dealing with certain subject matter. Lakin Cattle Co. v. Engelthaler, Ariz., 419 P.2d 66, 68.
"Judicial notice" of the law includes notice of its true reading and of all matter which can legally affect its validity or meaning. In re Ardulno's Estate, 20 Ohio Dec. 461, 9 Ohio N.P.,N.S. 369.
"Judicial notice," of which courts may take cognizance, is composed of facts capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by (p.24)resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy and verifiable certainty. State ex rel. Humiston v. Meyers, 380 P.2d 735, 739, 61 Wash.2d 772.
"Judicial notice" is either "judicial knowledge," which is what court must possess and take cognizance of, or "common knowledge," which is what court may declare applicable to the action without necessity of proof and for more speedy expedition of trials. Strain v. Isaacs, 18 N.E.2d 816, 825, 59 Ohio App. 495.
The Supreme Court would not take "judicial notice" of the alleged fact that the Cornmunist Party advocates overthrow of the government of the United States by force and violence, especially where such fact was denied by plaintiffs. Communist Party of U.S. of America v. Peek, 127 P.2d 889, 896, 20 Cal.2d 536.
The doctrine of judicial notice is not a hard and fast one, but is modified by judicial discretion, the courts not being bound to take judicial notice of matters of fact; whether they will do so or not being dependent on the nature of the subject, the issue involved, and the apparent justice of the case. City of St. Louis v. Niehaus, 139 S.W. 450, 452, 236 Mo. 8.
Presiding judge's personal knowledge of adaptability of some barbers to jest and humor so as to entertain their patrons would not permit taking of "judicial notice" of such adaptability, as custom to warrant such notice must be so widespread that tribunals will take cognizance thereof without special proof and accept it as an established fact. Vann v. Ionta, 284 N.Y.S. 278, 280, 157 Misc. 461.
There are certain facts of which courts may take notice and which need not be proven, "judicial notice" fulfilling the object for which evidence is designed and standing in place of evidence; and, if called upon to take judicial notice of a fact of which he should take notice, or if in the trial other facts suggest to him the probable existence of such fact, the trial judge may inform himself in respect thereto, refresh his memory by referring to documents or books of reference. Ervin v. State, Tex., 44 S.W.2d 380, 383; Line v. Line, 86 A. 1032, 1034, 119 Md. 403, Ann. Cas.1914D, 192.
The appellate tribunal should not extend the rule regarding "judicial notice" further than is proper to follow it in the court of first instance. In the appellate court the evidence directly pertinent should be well known to all parties in interest. Courts will not take judicial notice of statutes under which a company is organized, not offered in evidence and not proven. The district court is without authority to take judicial notice of proceedings in a case in another jurisdiction. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 41 So. 492, 493, 117 La. 199, citing Jones on Evidence, verbo "Judicial Notice"; overruling Graham v. Williams, 21 La.Ann. 596.
"'Judicial notice' does not depend on the actual knowledge of the judges. When the fact is alleged, they must investigate and may refresh their recollection by resorting to any means which they may deem safe and proper." In a proceeding for the violation of a liquor injunction, the court can take judicial notice of the decree violated, although the presiding judge has no personal knowledge or remembrance thereof. Haaren v. Mould, 122 N.W. 921, 923, 144 Iowa, 296, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 404, quoting and adopting definition given in State ex rel. Marr v. Stearns, 75 N.W. 210, 72 Minn. 200.
"That a matter is 'judicially noticed' means merely that it is taken as true without the offering of evidence by the party who should ordinarily have done so. But the opponent is not prevented from disputing the matter by evidence if he believes it disputable." Thus where, in a proceeding to abate a dam as a public nuisance, it is alleged that the stream is navigable, the court, on demurrer to the complaint, cannot take judicial notice that the stream is nonnavigable and prevent the introduction of proof to show the contrary. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Norcross, 112 N.W. 40, 43, 132 Wis. 534, 122 Am.St.Bep. 998.
"Judicial notice" is form of evidence. Ex parte Samaha, 19 P.2d 839, 840, 130 Cal.App. 116.
"Judicial notice" means acceptance of a matter as proved without requiring the party to offer evidence of it. In re Aughenbaugh, C.C.A.Pa., 125 F.2d 887, 890.
The doctrine of "judicial notice" was adopted as a judicial shortcut to avoid necessity (p.25)for the formal introduction of evidence in certain cases where there is no real need for such evidence. Communist Party of U.S. of America v. Peeks 127 P.2d 889, 896, 20 Cal.2d 536.
Doctrine of "judicial notice" was adopted as a judicial shortcut to avoid necessity for formal introduction of evidence in certain cases where there is no real need for such evidence, Johnson v. City of Tulsa, 258 P.2d 695, 700, 97 Okl.Cr. 85.
"Judiclal notice" is a matter of evidence and knowledge on part of courts which requires no formal proof. Burtis v. Butler Bros., 226 S.W.2d 825, 830, 148 Tex. 543.
The rule of "judicial notice" is essentially a rule which permits the court to dispense with proof of a self-evident and notorious fact, but the opponent is not prevented from disputing the matter by evidence if he believes it disputable. Macht v. Hecht Co., 59 A.2d 754, 756, 191 Md. 98.
The theory of taking "judicial notice" of a fact, in a case where taking of judicial notice is warranted, is that it is a judicial shortcut, a doing away, in case of evidence, with the formal necessity for evidence because there is no real necessity for it, since what is known need not be proved. Lemel v. Smith, 187 P.2d 169, 178, 64 Nev. 545.
The process of taking "judicial notice" does not imply that the judge at the moment actually knows and feels sure of the truth of the matter submitted, but merely relieves party from offering evidence because the matter is one which the judge either knows or can easily discover. In re Malcom, 129 F.2d 529, 533, 29 C.O.P.A. (Patents) 1145.
"Judicial notice" takes the place of proof, and is of equal force, and as a means of establishing facts it is superior to evidence, as it stands for proof, and fulfills the object which evidence is designed to fulfill, and makes evidence unnecessary. Beardsley v. Irving, 71 A. 580, 581, 81 Conn. 489. See, also, Gay v. City of Eugene, 100 P. 306, 308, 53 Or. 289, 18 Ann.Cas. 188.
"Judicial notice" takes the place of proof, and is of equal force. As a means of establishing facts, it is therefore superior to evidence. In its appropriate field, it displaces evidence, since, as it stands for proof, it fulfills the object which evidence is designed to fulfill, and makes evidence unnecessary. Ervin v. State, Tex., 44 S.W.2d 380, 383.
Judicial notice takes the place of proof, and is of equal force. As a means of establishing facts it is therefore superior to evidence. In its appropriate field, it displaces evidence, since, as it stands for proof, it fulfills the object which evidence is designed to fulfill, and makes evidence unnecessary. If, in regard to any subject of judicial notice, the court should permit documents to be referred to, or testimony introduced, it would not be in any proper sense the admission of evidence, but simply a resort to a convenient means of refreshing the memory, or making the trier aware of that of which everybody ought to be aware. State v. Main, 37 A. 80, 84, 69 Conn. 123, 36 L.R.A. 623, 61 Am.St.Rep. 30, citing Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37, 43, 23 L.Ed. 200; Com. v. Marzynski, 21 N.E. 228, 149 Mass. 68; State v. Morris, 47 Conn. 179, 180.
"Judicial Notice" or "Judicial Knowledge" means that the court will bring to its aid, without proof or evidence of the facts, its knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of such facts. Gramling v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., D.C.S.C., 151 F.Supp. 853, 858.
"Judicial notice" and "judicial knowledge" are not identical, and court which is left without knowledge of a fact after exploring to the full every channel of information must decide against litigant who counts upon the fact as an essential of his claim. Shapleigh v. Mier, Tex., 57 S.Ct. 261, 264, 299 U.S. 468, 81 L.Ed. 355.
"Judicial notice" is cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof because they already know them. Wolf v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 81 S.W.2d 323, 332, 336 Mo. 746.
"Judicial notice" depends on common knowledge of fact in order to eliminate necessity of proof. Bigger v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, Del.Super., 46 A.2d 137, 141, 4 Terry 274.
"Judicial notice" is the taking of cognizance by the court of certain facts without (p.26)the necessity of proof. State v. Lawrence, 234 P.2d 600, 601, 120 Utah 323.
"Judicial notice" is the taking cognizance by courts of those facts capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to eastly accessible sources of indisputable accuracy. State ex rel. Kornmann v. Larson, S.D., 138 N.W.2d 1, 5.
"Judicial notice" is the cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof because they already know them. Palestroni v. Jacobs, 73 A.2d 89, 92, 8 N.J.Super. 438; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Peaster, Tex.Civ. App., 178 S.W.2d 302, 307.
The "judicial notice" rule is that what well-informed persons generally know the courts are presumed to know and that of such matters they may take cognizance without proof. Brandon v. Lozier-Broderick & Gordon, 168 P.2d 384, 387, 160 Kan. 506.
"Judicial notice" is cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof because they already know them. James Mitchell, Inc., v. Kreugers Unknown Executors, Cir.Ct., 163 A. 10, 12, 10 N.J.Misc. 1176.
"Judicial notice" or "judicial knowledge" means that the court will bring to its aid, without proof or evidence of the facts, its knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of such facts. Carter v. Neeleys Estate, 2 N.E. 2d 221, 222, 102 Ind App. 257
"Judiciai notice" may be defined as the cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof, because they already know them. United States v. Hammers, D.C.Fla., 241 F. 542, 543.
"Judicial notice" means that courts consider, without evidence, those matters of public concern which are known to all well-informed persons. State v. Finch, 280 P. 910, 913, 128 Kane 665, 66 A.L.R. 1369.
"Judicial notice" is a term used to express the duty or power of the courts to accept the purposes of the trial the truth of certain well-known facts without requiring proof thereof. City of Chicago v. Williams, 98 N.E. 666, 668, 254 Ill. 360.
Courts will take "judicial notice" of matters of such general and public notoriety that every one within limits of their jurisdiction may fairly be presumed to be acquainted with them. Maylender v. Fulton County Gas & Electric Co., 227 N.Y.S. 209, 217, 131 Misc. 514.
Doctrine of "judicial notice" operates to admit into evidence, without formal proof, those facts which are matter of common and general knowledge and which are established and known within limits of jurisdiction of court. Palmer v. Mitchell, 206 N.E.2d 776, 779, 57 Ill.App.2d 160.
In a broad sense, the term "judicial notice" is used to denote both judicial knowledge (which courts possess) and common knowledge (which informed individuals, including jurors, possess); and matters of common knowledge may be declared applicable to case without proof. Bone v. General Motors Corp., Mo., 322 S.W.2d 916, 924, 71 A.L.R.2d 361.
Before a court will take "judicial notice" of any fact, that fact must be a matter of common and general knowledge, well established and authoritatively settled, and test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to fact to make it proper to assume its existence without proof. Johnson v. City of Tulsa, 258 P.2d 695, 700, 97 Okl.Cr. 85; Communist Party of U.S. of America v. Peek, 127 P.2d 889, 896, 20 Cal.2d 536.
"Judicial notice" means that the court will bring to its aid and consideration, without proof of facts, its knowledge of those matters of public concern which are known by all well-informed persons. Grand View Gardens v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 81 A.2d 510, 511, 14 N.J.Super. 167.
"Judicial notice" is a rule of necessity and public policy in the expedition of trials, relieving a party from the necessity of offering evidence because the matter is one which the judge either knows or can easily discover. Williams v. Com., 56 S.E.2d 537, 542, 190 Va. 280.
The limits of "judicial notice" cannot be prescribed with exactness, but notoriety is, generally speaking, the ultimate test of facts sought to be brought within the realm of judicial notice; in general, it covers matters so notorious that a production of evidence would (p.27)be unnecessary, matters which the judicial function supposes the judge to be acquainted with actually or theoretically, and matters not strictly included under either of such heads, Gottstein v. Lister, 153 P. 595, 602, 88 Wash. 462, Ann.Cas.1917D, 1008.
In view of Cr.Code Prac. § 137, and Ky. St. § 460, providing that words used in indictments or statutes shall be construed according to their usual meaning, the courts will take judicial notice that an indictment alleging the unlawful prescribing of morphine charges an offense denounced by Acts 1912, c. 86, regulating the prescribing of opium or its alkaloidal salts; the fact that morphine is a derivative of opium being one of common knowledge. Com. v. Gabhart, 169 S.W. 514, 515, 160 Ky. 32.
In the interpretation of an ambiguous statute, courts should examine, in the light of the history of its enactment, as disclosed by the legislative journal, the contemporary conditions and situation of the people, the economic and sociologic policy of the state, its Constitution and laws, and all other matter of common knowledge within the limits of their jurisdiction. The consideration of this knowledge, without proof of the facts, is generally termed "judicial notice" for the want of a better expression; but the term means no more than that courts, in construing the law, will bring to their aid those facts which are known by all well-informed persons because they are matters of public concern. State v. Kelly, 81 P. 450, 452, 71 Kan. 811, 70 L.R.A. 450, 6 Ann.Cas. 298.
"The matters of which judicial notice may be taken are those which must have happened according to the constant and invariable course of nature, or are of such general and public notoriety that every one may fairly be presumed to be acquainted with them. The expression of Brown, J., in Hunter v. New York, O. & W. Ry. Co., 23 N.E. 9, 10, 116 N.Y. 615, 6 L.R.A. 246, is that notice may be taken of facts which are generally known, and, as the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, so the doctrine embraces matters so curiously diverse as the rising of the sun; the status of the Isle of Cuba; the late Civil War; the contents of the Bible; the character of a camp meeting; the height of the human frame; the fable of the frozen snake; the characteristics and construction of the ice cream freezer; the general use of the diamond stack or the straight stack spark arrester; the habits of those who shave--in fine, 'all things, both great and small.' In resolving such questions the judges have recognized that the criterion is the maxim, 'What is known need not be proved;' and, beginning with Starkie, who, as Thayer notes, first took special notice of the subject, the text-writers, such as Phillips, Greenleaf, Stephen, Rice, and Burr-Jones, are not in accord. Thus, Swayne, J., in Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37, 23 L.Ed. 200, says: 'Facts of universal notoriety need not be proved.' Comstock, J., in Wyneharner v. People, 13 N.Y.(3 Kern.) 378, says: 'We must be allowed to know what is known by all persons of common intelligence.'" Town of North Hempstead v. Gregory, 65 N.Y.S. 867, 869, 53 App.Div. 350.
[From Words and Phrases, vol. 23A, "Estoppel-Kyposis", 1998 Cumulative Annual Pocket Part (West, 1998).]
Courts may not take "judicial notice" of testimony in prior unrelated cases, but must decide cases on competent evidence introduced in the trial of the case. Sutherland v. Sutherland, Tenn.App., 831 S.W.2d 283, 285.
"Judicial notice" means that court will bring to its aid, without proof or existence of the facts, its knowledge of existence or nonexistence of such facts. Glover v. Ottinger, Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 1212, 1214.
"Judicial notice" has been explained in terms of human experience showing general certainty of particular results, following course or sequence of notorious events. Hoelscher v. Sel-Mor Garment Co., Mo.App., 430 S.W.2d 745, 748.
"Judicial notice" is simply process whereby one party is relieved of burden of producing evidence to prove a certain fact and under such doctrine court may consult sources of indisputable accuracy and notice from such sources facts which are capable of being known to a verifiable certainty. State v. Barnes, 187 N.W.2d 845, 847, 52 Wis.2d 82.
Doctrine of "judicial notice" permits judge to consider generally accepted or readily verified fact as proved without requiring evidence to establish it. U.S. v. Berrojo, C.A.Fla., 628 F.2d 368, 369.
"Judicial notice" permits court to admit certain facts into evidence without usual requirements of proof when such facts are not subject to reasonable dispute, either because they are generally known or because they are readily verifiable by reliable re sources. British Steel plc v. U.S., CIT, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1318.
Judicial notice of fact does not necessarily establish fact; rather, correctly taken, "judicial notice" of fact, is evidence which, like any other evidence, may be rebutted. In Interest of D.S., 622 A.2d 954, 957, 424 Pa.Super. 350.
"Judicial notice" is knowledge which a court takes of a matter without evidence having been introduced to establish it. People v. Sowle, 327 N.Y.S.2d 510, 513, 68 Misc.2d, 569.
The doctrine of "judicial notice" is a part of the law of evidence which removes the necessity of detailed proof of authenticity as to official act of the corporate entity. Town of Normal v. Witham, 233 N.E.2d 576, 577, 91 Ill.App.2d 262.
All appellate courts must, through research, obtain knowledge of their own state's legislative acts and judicial decisions in order to interpret statutes and apply law to facts, this is not "judicial notice" as that term is used in law of evidence, but may be more properly characterized as "juditial knowledge" gained through research, determination of what is forum state's law is a fundamental part of judicial function. Rayburn v. State, Ala, 366 So.2d 708, 710.
"Judicial notice" excuses party having burden of establishing fact from necessity of producing formal proof. Hutchinson v. State, Ind., 477 N.E.2d 850, 854.
"Judicial notice" is court's cognizance of adjudicative facts without any proof. Reeves v. Agee, Okl., 769 P.2d 745, 757.
"Judicial notice" of law, including agency regulations, dispenses with need to offer evidence by permitting court to recognize principles of law governing the case before the court. Rice v. James Hanrahan & Sons, 482 N.E.2d 833, 838, 20 Mass. App. 701.
"Judicial notice" is merely the cognizance of certain facts which jurors and judges may properly take into account and act upon without proof. Freson v. Combs, Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 55, 60.
Doctrine of "judicial notice" alleviates necessity of introducing evidence to prove certain facts; it operates as substitute for formal proof. In re Snider Farms, Inc., Bkrtcy.N.D.Ind., 83 B.R. 977, 996.
"Judicial notice" is the recognition of certain evidentiary matters without the introduction of formal proof; proper method to invoke the doctrine is for the party concerned to request specifically that the court judicially note the matter in question; in the case of a regulation or statute and comparable written document, better practice is for the record of trial to include a copy of the doctrine or pertinent extracts therefrom as an exhibit. U.S. v. Burnett, NCMR, 1 M.J. 912, 913.
"Judicial notice" is the cognizance of certain facts which judges and the jurors may properly take and act upon without proof because they already know them. Mitchum v. State, Fla.App., 251 So.2d 298, 300.
"Judicial notice" is when court recognizes truth of certain facts, which from their nature are not properly subject of testimony or which are universally regarded as established by common knowledge. Meredith v. Beech Aircraft Corp., C.A.10(Kan.), 18 F.3d 890, 895.
"Judicial notice" is rule of evidence which presumes as true matter subject to notice, and dispenses with formal requirement to present proof; its conclusiveness depends upon certainty of source of information, such as matters of common knowledge, laws of nature or authority of State statutes. Baris v. State, Mo.App.W.D., 846 S.W.2d 764, 765.
Term "judicial notice" is broadly used to denote both judicial knowledge and common knowledge, and matters of common knowledge may be declared applicable to case without proof; however, doctrine of judicial notice is not hard and fast, but rather, is modified by judicial discretion which leaves it generally to the court to determine for itself whether it exercises power in given instance, depending primarily upon nature of subject, issues involved, and apparent justice of the case. Carr v. Grimes, Mo.App.S.D., 852 S.W.2d 345, 351.
"Judicial notice" takes the place of proof and means that court will admit into evidence and consider, without proof of the facts, matters of common and general knowledge. Moss v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 228 S.E2d 108, 112, 267 S.C. 370.
The phrase "judicial notice" means no more than that a court will bring to its aid and consider, without proof of fact, its knowledge of those matters of public concern which are known by all well-informed persons. Ashland Sav. & Loan Assn v. Aetna Ins. Co., 309 N.E.2d 293, 299, 18 Ill.App.3d 70.
"Judicial notice" is method by which courts dispense with formal proof when there is no real necessity for it because facts noticed are indisputable as a matter of notorious common knowledge or as being easily capable of immediate verification. S.J. Lemoine, Inc. v. St. Landry Parish School Bd., La.App. 3 Cir., 527 So.2d 1150, 1153.
"Judicial notice" is the act by which a court, in conducting a trial, or framing its decision, will, of its own motion, and without production of evidence, recognize the existence and truth of certain facts having a bearing on the controversy at bar, which, from their nature, are not properly the subject of testimony, or which are universally regarded as established by common notoriety. State v. Berch, Iowa, 222 N.W.2d 741, 744.
A court may take "judicial notice" of facts that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute. Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 63 Cal.Rptr. 724, 739, 433 P.2d 732, 67 C.2d 695.
"Judicial notice" is that mode of ascertainment by judicial authority of matters of universal knowledge without having such matters established by evidence in individual case. Murray v. Donlan, 433 N.Y.S.2d 184, 190, 77 A.D.2d 337.
[ Home ]