Findings of fact will be treated with respect in the appeal, and a court of appeal will only set aside a finding of fact if trier has manifestly erred in fact. This contrasts with a conclusion based on the rule of law, which is under stricter scrutiny. A question of fact is best understood by comparing it to a question of law. Whether a particular issue in civil proceedings is a question of fact or law is important because it can determine whether a party wins the case in the urgent proceedings. Summary judgment is a judgment on the merits of the case without a hearing. A civil respondent may request summary judgment at any time after the claim is filed, but a plaintiff must generally wait shortly after filing the lawsuit (so that the defendant can respond) before seeking summary judgment. In deciding whether or not to grant an application for summary judgment, a court may take into account the confessions of the parties in their pleadings, responses to interrogations and statements, and affidavits of personal knowledge of the facts. In appeal proceedings, a question of fact is treated differently from a question of law. If a complainant alleges that the investigator has decided false factual issues, an appellate court will respect the investigator`s decisions. The investigator can see and hear all the evidence and is therefore better able to draw factual conclusions than the Court of Appeal. However, if an appellant claims that the trial judge made an incorrect decision on a point of law, the Court of Appeal will consider the trial judge`s decision more carefully. In essence, it is more difficult to set aside a judgment on the basis of a question of fact than a judgment based on a question of law.
A question of fact is treated in the same way in a bench procedure (procedure without a jury) as in a jury trial. The only difference is that in a trial at first instance, the same person resolves legal and factual issues because the investigator is the judge. Nevertheless, a judge cannot rule on essential questions of fact at a hearing without first allowing the parties to proceed to trial. Whether it is a question of fact or law is not always clear. In Cruse v. Coldwell Banker, 667 So. 2d 714 (Ala. 1995), Gary and Venita Cruse saw a house that was advertised as new, although the vendors, Randy and Brenda Harris, lived in the house. The Cruses bought the house before carrying out a full inspection. After further investigation, they found numerous defects and sued the seller and the brokerage company for fraud. The respondents sought a summary verdict on the basis that the Cruses knew that the sellers lived in the house and that the Cruse signed a contract stating that they had taken the house as it was, without guarantee.
The Trial Court granted the application and held that there was no question of fact in the case and that the defendants were legally entitled to a summary judgment. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned the decision. Regardless of the contract and the knowledge of the Cruses of the previous residents, the description of the house as new brought with it a tacit guarantee of habitability. Since it had not been established whether the house was indeed new, a fundamental question of fact remained and summary judgment was inappropriate. n. the determination of a question of fact that is of essential importance to a decision in a case by the Trier (jury or judge without jury) after a hearing of a legal dispute, which are often referred to as findings of fact. A statement of facts is different from a legal conclusion, which is determined by the judge as the sole legal expert. It is not necessary to draw conclusions of fact and legal conclusions if they are overturned or not requested by the trial lawyers, leaving only the judgment in the case.
Reytblat, Julia. 1999. “Is the originality of copyright a `question of law` or a `question of fact?` Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 17 (Spring). By way of illustration, suppose a plaintiff takes legal action to enforce an agreement to purchase real estate. The defendant states in its reply that the agreement was oral and the plaintiff does not dispute that the agreement was oral. The court could then order a summary judgment in favour of the defendant, since a contract for the sale of land must be in writing to be enforceable. Assuming that these are not other issues, admitting that the agreement was oral eliminates the only substantive question of fact in this case. The only issue the court would have to decide would be a question of law: is an oral agreement on the sale of land enforceable? This is not the case, so the plaintiff would lose the case without the benefit of litigation, as there are no essential facts on which an investigator can rule.
A matter that involves the resolution of a factual dispute or controversy and that falls within the scope of decisions to be made by a jury. A court orders summary judgment in a civil case if there is no real question of fact and the party moving is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the undisputed facts. If a case does not involve questions of fact, the only questions are legal issues, so the process of investigating a trial is not necessary. “Factfinding Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/factfinding. Retrieved 11 October 2022. Determination of facts (also known as determination of facts) refers to Trier`s factual decisions on questions of fact in a case. Factual questions arise when the parties do not agree on the facts and, after presenting evidence, Trier must decide what the actual facts are. Findings of fact may be made by a jury or judges according to the agreement of the parties.
These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a process. Since questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, a judge, if it is a question of fact, cannot make a summary judgment until the factual dispute has been resolved. A question of fact is a factual dispute between litigants, which must be resolved by the jury at trial. This is a key issue at the outcome of the case and requires an interpretation of the conflicting views on the factual circumstances of the case. Even if a plaintiff challenges a defendant`s response, a defendant can still obtain a summary verdict by proving before trial that there is no question of fact in the case. To do so, the defendant must prove that there is no question of fact according to the standard of proof that would be used in the trial. In civil suits, this standard is either a preponderance of evidence or the slightly higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. n. in a legal dispute or criminal prosecution, a question of fact in which truth or lie (or a mixture of both) must be established by the “Trier of Facts” (the jury or judge in a trial without a jury) in order to make a decision in the case.
A “question of fact” may also be raised in an application for summary judgment, which asks the court to determine whether there are factual issues that need to be heard, so that at that time the judge can rule on the case without trial (usually to dismiss the complaint). “Factual questions” are distinct from “questions of law”, which can only be decided by the judge. (See: Question of Law, Judge, Application for Summary Judgment, Conclusion) Note: At the trial level, the determination of facts is done by the jury or judge in a trial without a jury. In agency procedures, the investigation of the facts is carried out by an official or by a commission, council or other body. (n) Findings of fact are the decision, opinion or observation made by a judge or jury on related matters and submitted to the court for decision. Fact-finding ultimately influences judgment. Meslar, Roger W., ed. 1990. Legalines Zivilprozessrecht.
3rd ed. Chicago: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal and Professional Publications. Clear and convincing evidence; Predominance of evidence. Arnold, Alvin L., and Marshall E. Tracht. 1996. “Fraud: Whether a House is New is a Question of Fact.” Real Estate Report 26 (November). Louisell, David W., Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. and Colin C. Tait. 1989.
Procedural documents: Staat und Bund; Suitcases and materials. 6th ed. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press.