Cited by

only to correct the interpretation”); (stating legislative amendments create the presumption that the legislature intended to change the law, but for purposes of retroactivity, the presumption is rebutted only if the legislature intended to merely clarify existing law, not change it).

n.2 (Minn. 2012) (noting that “prima facie case” is a term of art that “does not always carry the same meaning in every context[,]” but “may vary depending on the nature of the proceedings, the type of action involved, and the stage of the litigation”).

(describing the difference between a burden of production and a burden of persuasion); d 681, 683 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that the state must establish the validity of a prior conviction “by a fair preponderance of the evidence”).

A prima facie showing is generally considered to be either “[t]he establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption,” or “[a] party’s production of enough evidence to allow the fact -trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1441 (11th ed. 2019) (defining prima facie case); n.2 (Minn. 2012) (“We acknowledge that the term ‘prima facie case’ is a legal term of art that does not always carry the same meaning in every context.

“The Legislature’s amendment of a statute creates a presumption that the Legislature intended to change the law.”

The burden of production obligates a party “to come forward with sufficient evidence to support its claim.”

Louis County, (stating that a prima facie case is “one that prevails in the absence of evidence invalidating it” (quotation omitted)); n.2 (Minn. 2012) (noting that the term “prima facie case” is a term of art that “does not always carry the same meaning in every context,” but “m ay vary depending on the nature of the proceedings, the type of action involved, and the stage of the litigation”).

Braylock v. Jesson , n.2 (Minn. 2012).

to come forward with sufficient evidence to support [the] claim or the relief requested.” (applying Minn. Stat. § 253B.19, subd.

See Braylock v. Jesson , (stating that “presenting a prima facie case” and going “forwa rd with the evidence” are bot h “synonymous with a requirement that a party meet a b urden of production” (quotation marks omitted)).

Braylock v. Jesson , , 588 (Minn. 2012).

Although the presumption may be rebutted if the legislature intended only to clarify the law, see Braylock v. Jesson , , 588 (Minn. 2012), the presumption is not rebutted here.

See Coker v. Jesson , 6 & n. 2 (Minn. 2013)

Braylock v. Jesson , , 588 (Minn. 2012).

See 2015 Minn. Laws ch. 17, § 13, at 164; see also Braylock v. Jesson , (“When the Legislature merely clarifies preexisting law, the amended statute appl ies to all future or pending litigation.

The burden of production is “the obligation of a party to come forward with sufficient evidence to support its claim or the relief requested.” see also Burden of Production, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).

-91 (Minn. 2012) (explaining the differences between burdens of production and persuasion).

(“When the Legislature merely clarifies preexisting law, the amended statute applies to all future or pending litigation.

See Minn. Stat. § 645.21 (2014) (“No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature.”); (“When the Legislature merely clarifies preexisting law, the amended statute applies to all future or pending litigation.

(“When the Legislature merely clarified preexisting law, the amended statute applies to all future or pending litigation.”).

(addressing how to determine whether amendment of statute was meant to be retroactive).

1 (“When the Legislature merely clarifies preexisting law, the amended statute applies to all future or pending litigation.”).