Which of the following qualifies as a fact that can be judicially noticed?

Judicial notice pertains to the recognition of certain facts that are generally accepted and can be deemed as true without the need for further evidence. These facts must be undisputed and readily verifiable, falling within the realm of common knowledge or universally accepted truths.

Indisputable facts of common knowledge qualify for judicial notice because they are widely acknowledged and do not require formal proof. Examples could include historical dates, commonly known geographical facts, or well-established scientific principles. Courts will take these facts into account to streamline proceedings, mitigating the need for evidence that would otherwise establish these truths.

In contrast, facts established through a trial are subject to the evidentiary process and may rely on varying interpretations. Opinions of experts, while valuable in cases requiring specialized knowledge, do not meet the criteria for judicial notice because they are subjective and not universally accepted. Speculative facts are inherently uncertain and cannot be verified, thus falling outside the scope of what can be judicially noticed. Hence, the essence of the correct choice lies in its alignment with established parameters of judicially noticed facts, recognizing them as common knowledge that courts can accept without controversy.