Brandeis Doctrine of Assimilation of Facts

Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a
question of law as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter, the court will, in order to decide
the legal question, examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary.

Example:

Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz

The Supreme Court rendered a decision denying the argument of the commission that trade practices in
the case at bar was replete with unfair practices. In the reversing the decision of the lower court went
beyond the issue of whether or not an evidentiary basis existed which would support the administrative
conclusion.

The Court however utilized its function to independently determine what the appropriate law would
apply in the instant case. This resulted in the Court creating a pure question of law due to the
application of the statutory concept in the given case.

If, when liberally construed, the complaint is plainly insufficient to show unfair competition within the
proper meaning of these words, there is no foundation for an order to desist -- the thing which may be
prohibited is the method of competition specified in the complaint. Such an order should follow the
complaint; otherwise it is improvident and, when challenged, will be annulled by the court.

The words "unfair method of competition" are not defined by the statute, and their exact meaning is in
dispute. It is for the courts, not the commission, ultimately to determine as matter of law what they
include. They are clearly inapplicable to practices never heretofore regarded, as opposed to good morals
because characterized by deception, bad faith, fraud, or oppression, or as against public policy because
of their dangerous tendency unduly to hinder competition or create monopoly. The act was certainly not
intended to fetter free and fair competition as commonly understood and practiced by honorable
opponents in trade."