Which statement is true regarding the admissibility of facts in pleadings?

The statement regarding the admissibility of facts in pleadings that is accurate is that facts presumed do not need to be pleaded. In civil procedure, there are certain facts that are regarded as established unless disproven, which means they do not require formal pleading by either party. This streamlines the process because it allows the court to focus on genuinely contested issues rather than on facts that are already accepted as true.

In contrast, the need to plead all facts can burden the pleadings with unnecessary details about every aspect of a case, especially those that are already legally presumed. For instance, if a fact is universally acknowledged or recognized within the jurisdiction, such as the age of majority, it does not require pleading. Therefore, this principle helps to simplify the legal process and conserves judicial resources.

The other options suggest a more rigid or incorrect approach to pleading requirements. For instance, stating that all facts must be pleaded overlooks the nuances of legal presumptions. Similarly, the idea that only contested facts need to be included ignores the role of established facts in clarifying the issues at hand. Lastly, the notion that only legal points must be mentioned undermines the importance of factual context in pleadings, which aids in presenting a complete and coherent argument to the court.