exchange for a share of the calf crop pursuant to the share agreement. Therefore, we agree with the district court that the evidence in this case conclusively rebuts the presumption of ownership created by the presence of Nick Harris’s brands on the cattle. 2. The Effect of Multiple Brands An additional factor compelling the conclusion that the re-branding in this case did not effect a change of ownership is that conflicting inferences arise from the multiple brands on the cows at issue. This is particularly so given the freshness of Nick Harris’s brand. Older case law from western cattle-raising states, largely involving cattle rustling, suggests that the last brand is not automatically dispositive of ownership. See, e.g., Coomes v. Drinkwalter, 181 Neb. 450, 149 N.W.2d 60, 64 (1967) (<HOLDING>); State v. Moss, 95 Or. 616, 188 P. 702, 706
holding that in cases of multiple brands it is prima facie evidence of ownership in the older brand holding that although a jury instruction that included the phrase prima facie case and referred to defendants burden of production created a distinct risk of confusing the jury in certain instances it would be appropriate to instruct the jury on the elements of a prima facie case holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous