Search Wikipedia Search Create account Log in

Question of law 4 languages

Contents hide Article Talk Read Edit View history Tools

(Top) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question of fact (Redirected from Trier of law)

See also
In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to the interpretation of
References the law.[1] Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising
from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles. They can be applied to many situations rather
than particular circumstances or facts. An answer to a question of law as applied to the specific facts of a case is often referred to as a conclusion of law.

In several civil law jurisdictions, the highest courts deem questions of fact as settled by the lower courts and will only consider questions of law. They thus
may refer a case back to a lower court to re-apply the law and answer any fact-based evaluations based on their answer on the application of the law.
International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice will only answer questions of law asked by judges of national
courts if they are uncertain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organizations.

Questions of law are resolved by a judge or equivalent, while questions of fact are resolved by a trier of fact, which in the common law system is often a
jury. Conclusions of law are more readily reconsidered by an appellate court, whereas findings of fact in a common law legal system are rarely
overturned.[citation needed]

Question of fact [ edit ]

In law, a question of fact, also known as a point of fact, is a question that must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences
arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. The answer to
a question of fact (a "finding of fact") usually depends on particular circumstances or factual situations.[2]

All questions of fact can be proved or disproved by reference to a certain standard of evidence. Depending on the nature of the matter, the standard of
proof may require that a fact be proven to be "more likely than not" (there is barely more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a
preponderance of the evidence) or true beyond reasonable doubt.

Answers to questions of fact are determined by a trier of fact such as a jury or a judge. In many jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, appellate
courts generally do not consider appeals based on errors of fact (errors in answering a question of fact). Instead, the findings of fact of the first venue are
usually given great deference by appellate courts.[3]

The distinction between "law" and "fact" has proved obscure wherever it is employed. For instance, the common law used to require that a
plaintiff's complaint in a civil action only state the "facts" of his case, not any "legal conclusions." Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to
tell whether the allegation that "on November 9, the defendant negligently ran over the plaintiff with his car at the intersection of State Street
and Chestnut Street" is a statement of fact or a legal conclusion. In fact, the distinction between law and fact is just the legal version of the
philosophical distinction between "empirical" and "analytical" statements, a distinction on whose existence philosophers have been unable to
agree to this day. ... ... we will see that many defendants charged with impossible attempts are not in fact attempting the crime they are
charged with attempting. They merely think they are committing a crime. ...

The philosopher Alfred Lessing argues

It would be merely foolish to assert that it is of no interest whatever to know that The Disciples is a forgery. But to the man who has never
heard of either Vermeer or van Meegeren and who stands in front of The Disciples admiring it, it can make no difference whether he is told that
it is a seventeenth-century Vermeer or a twentieth-century van Meegeren in the style of Vermeer. And when some deny this and argue
vehemently that, indeed, it does make a great deal of difference, they are only admitting that they do know something about Vermeer and van
Meegeren and the history of art and the value and reputation of certain masters. They are only admitting that they do not judge a work of art on
purely aesthetic grounds, but also take into account when it was created, by whom, and how great a reputation it or its creator has.[4]

See also [ edit ]

A priori and a posteriori

Analytic–synthetic distinction
Case brief
Demarcation problem
Epistemology
Fact § In law
Fact–value distinction
Falsifiability
Findings of facts
Is–ought problem
Judgment (law)
Lord Advocate's Reference
Problem of induction

References [ edit ]

1. ^ Proffatt, John (1877). A Treatise on Trial by Jury, Including Questions of Law and Fact (1986 reprint ed.). Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co.
ISBN 9780899417073.
2. ^ "Question of fact" . Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
3. ^ Sharma, Riecha; Tacey, Sam. "The Decision is Final: English High Court Rules That There Can Be No Appeal Against Arbitration Awards on Issues of Fact" .
edwardswildman.com. Edwards Wildman Palmer. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
4. ^ Katz, Leo (1987). "The Crime That Never Was: a Fake Opinion in Case involving Facts" . Bad Acts and Guilt Minds: Conundrums of Criminal Law. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press. pp. 276–293 . ISBN 9780226425924.

· · Jurisprudence [hide]

Index

Critical legal studies · Comparative law · Economic analysis · Legal norms · International legal theory · Legal history · Philosophy of law ·
Legal theory
Sociology of law
Alexy · Aquinas · Aristotle · Austin · Bastiat · Beccaria · Bentham · Blackstone · Bobbio · Bork · Cardozo · Durkheim · Dworkin · Ehrlich · Finnis · Fuller ·
Grotius · Gurvitch · Habermas · Haller · Han · Hart · Hegel · Hobbes · Hägerström · Jellinek · Jhering · Kant · Kelsen · Leoni · Llewellyn · Luhmann ·
Philosophers
Marx · Müller · Nussbaum · Olivecrona · Pashukanis · Perelman · Petrażycki · Posner · Pound · Pufendorf · Radbruch · Rawls · Raz · Reinach · Renner
· Ross · Rumi · Savigny · Scaevola · Schmitt · Shang · Suárez · Stahl · Unger · Voegelin · Walzer · Weber
Analytical jurisprudence · Deontological ethics · Fundamental theory of Catholic canon law · German historical school · Interpretivism · Legal moralism ·
Theories
Legal positivism · Legal realism · Legalism · Libertarian theories of law · Natural law · Paternalism · Utilitarianism · Virtue jurisprudence

Concepts Dharma · Fa · Judicial interpretation · Justice · Law without the state · Legal system · Li · Question of law · Rational-legal authority · Usul al-Fiqh

Category · Law portal · Philosophy portal · WikiProject Law · WikiProject Philosophy · changes

Portal: Law

Categories: Evidence law Philosophy of law

This page was last edited on 30 January 2024, at 21:43 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.

Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Code of Conduct Developers Statistics Cookie statement Mobile view