Definition
Not final or determinative; capable of being disputed, rebutted, or supplemented by further proof. In legal usage, the term applies primarily in two contexts:
1. Evidence. Evidence that does not establish a fact with sufficient certainty to foreclose further inquiry or compel a particular conclusion. Inconclusive evidence leaves the question open — it may support an inference without settling the matter.
2. Presumptions. A presumption that is rebuttable rather than absolute. An inconclusive presumption shifts the burden of going forward but yields to contrary proof; it does not conclusively establish the presumed fact regardless of what other evidence shows.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Not conclusive, not leading to a conclusion.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not conclusive; leading to no conclusion; not closing or settling a point in debate or a doubtful question — as evidence is inconclusive when it does not exhibit the truth of a disputed case in such a manner as to satisfy the mind and put an end to debate or doubt.
The common meaning and the legal meaning are close but not identical. In ordinary usage, inconclusive describes a result that simply fails to settle something — a test, an argument, a finding. In legal usage, the term carries a more precise structural function: it signals that a particular piece of evidence or a presumption does not bar the opposing party from introducing contrary proof. The legal concept is not merely about uncertainty but about the permissibility of continued contest.
Common Confusion
INCONCLUSIVE vs. CONCLUSIVE. These are direct opposites in evidence law, but the distinction matters most in the context of presumptions, where the stakes are procedural. A conclusive (or irrebuttable) presumption cannot be overcome by any amount of contrary evidence — the law treats the presumed fact as established regardless. An inconclusive (rebuttable) presumption may be challenged and defeated. Researchers encountering these terms in older sources should be careful: the word "conclusive" in historical texts sometimes describes the weight of evidence informally rather than invoking the technical category of irrebuttable presumption.
Why It Matters in Research
The term appears most frequently in two doctrinal neighborhoods: the law of evidence (evaluating the sufficiency or weight of proof) and the law of presumptions (distinguishing rebuttable from irrebuttable). Researchers should be alert to context.
In evidence analysis, inconclusive is often used descriptively — a court finding that evidence is inconclusive is saying it does not rise to the level required for a directed verdict, summary judgment, or other dispositive ruling. This is a common characterization in appellate opinions reviewing sufficiency of evidence.
In presumption doctrine, the term functions more technically. The inconclusive/conclusive distinction maps onto the modern rebuttable/irrebuttable distinction. Researchers working in older American or English materials may encounter "inconclusive presumption" where modern sources would say "rebuttable presumption." These terms are functionally equivalent for research purposes, though the older framing sometimes implied a weaker evidentiary anchor than modern doctrine requires.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is anomalous — the definition begins correctly but then veers into material about incorporation by reference and railway statutes, apparently a typographical conflation with an adjacent entry. Researchers should not treat that source as authoritative on the legal definition of this term specifically.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources are unusually consistent on the core meaning. Black's (both editions), Burrill, and Bouvier agree: inconclusive means subject to rebuttal or further proof, and the term applies specifically to evidence and presumptions. Bouvier adds the clearest functional statement — "inconclusive presumptions are capable of being overcome by opposing proof" — which anticipates the modern framing of rebuttable presumptions almost precisely.
Burrill's entry is notable for anchoring the definition explicitly "in the law of evidence" before offering a general definition, signaling that even in the nineteenth century this was understood as a term of art rather than simply a borrowing from common speech. The reference to Lord Ellenborough (6 M. & S. 104) illustrates judicial use in the context of what property rights are or are not acquired by war — a specific application of the concept in public international law and the law of prize.
Anderson's cross-reference to "CONCLUDE, 2" reflects the standard practice of organizing the dictionary around root concepts; researchers using Anderson's should follow that cross-reference to locate the fuller treatment.
What historical sources do not address is the later procedural significance of the distinction — particularly the question of how an inconclusive presumption interacts with burdens of proof and production. That development is largely a twentieth-century refinement worked out in evidence codes and academic commentary, and is not reflected in these nineteenth-century entries.