In court, it is not enough to know a fact – you must be able to prove it. This means that you must be able to convince a jury or judge that the fact is most likely true. Proof of fact requires proof – something reliable to convince the jury or judge. But are these actions legal? Do the steps taken by social media platforms to ban or suspend individual accounts violate a person`s free speech guarantees under the First Amendment? Continue reading. Some facts are proven by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is “evidence that may allow a judge or jury to infer a particular fact from other facts that have been proven.” [3] A lawyer may support an eyewitness report with evidence of the circumstances of the situation that helps the judge or jury logically infer or reasonably derive facts that cannot be directly proven. Fingerprints are a perfect example of circumstantial evidence. There may not be an eyewitness placing an alleged burglar at the scene, but if the accused`s fingerprints were found at the scene, it can be concluded that he or she was there. [4] “Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court, unless the connection between fact and conclusion is too weak to be useful in deciding the case.

Many convictions for various crimes are largely based on circumstantial evidence. [5] Recent reports suggest that White House staff have regularly signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that restrict what they can say about their public service. On August 14, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted that “in many places, it is common for employees to sign NDAs, including to the government, especially those with security clearances.” But are these agreements legally enforceable? Continue reading. While questions of fact are resolved by a trier of fact, who in the common law system is often a jury, legal issues are always resolved by a judge or equivalent judge. While findings of fact in a common law legal system are rarely overturned by a court of appeal, legal findings are more easily reconsidered. Your arguments: (Why should the court make the order you want? Why should the judge or jury believe the fact that you are stating?) In the late summer of 2017, a resident asked the council of the village of Mundelein, Illinois, a northwestern suburb of Chicago, to place a Hanukkah menorah in a public park next to the traditional Christmas tree. The village`s attorney, Charles Marino, gave this advice: “My (legal) research has shown that a Christmas tree or a Christmas tree is secular,” he told the Chicago Tribune. “It`s not a religious symbol. It is neutral.

However, a menorah is a religious symbol and a nativity scene is a religious symbol. And so a safe haven is where the village is right now. The Mundelein Village Council rejected the request. Continue reading. Legal facts are the information on which lawyers base their arguments to win cases in court. The purpose of the evidence presented during a trial is to prove the facts that support the argument. Evidence is the key to convincing the judge or jury that your facts are the right ones on which to base a final decision. It is up to each party in a case to prove, to the satisfaction of the court and by presenting evidence, the facts necessary to support his or her case. [1] What do you think the court should order? (Or what fact do you want the judge or jury to believe?) House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, was elected on June 6. Asked by reporters about his reaction to a tweet by President Donald Trump that he could forgive himself and others to erase all convictions related to the special adviser`s investigation into his campaign ties to Russia. “He shouldn`t, and no one is above the law,” Ryan replied.

Two days earlier, Trump had tweeted, “As many jurists have noted, I have the absolute right to forgive myself, but why would I do this if I didn`t do anything wrong?” He also followed the suggestion of Trump`s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, that a sitting US president could not be indicted. Continue reading. For the second time in 13 months, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump. The decision on whether the president will be found guilty now goes to the U.S. Senate, where the issue faces an uncertain political and legal path. Continue reading.

The distinction between “law” and “fact” has proven obscure wherever it is used. For example, the common law required that a plaintiff`s claim in a civil action state only the “facts” of his or her case, not “legal conclusions.” Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to say whether the allegation that “the defendant negligently ran over the plaintiff with his car at the intersection of State Street and Chestnut Street on November 9” is a statement of fact or a legal finding. In fact, the distinction between law and fact is only the legal version of the philosophical distinction between “empirical” and “analytical” statements, a distinction on which philosophers have not yet been able to agree. 1) A question of facts, not law. A question of fact is resolved by a Trier of Facts, that is, by a jury or, in a court case, by a judge who assesses the strength of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Conversely, a legal issue is always resolved by a judge. 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. In a March 3 announcement, eight oligarchs, their family members and businesses were cut off from the United States.

A financial system that froze their U.S. assets and restricted their movement and use of property. Another 19 oligarchs and their 47 family members and close associates were subject to visa restrictions. Is there a legal basis for such actions? Learn more. In law, a question of fact, also known as a question of fact, is a question to be answered by reference to facts and evidence and to conclusions arising from those facts. Such a question is different from a question of law which must be answered using relevant legal principles. The answer to a question of fact (a “statement of fact”) usually depends on certain circumstances or facts. [2] On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v.

Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey nearly two decades later. The decision followed a leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women`s Health Organization, which raised the legal issue of the doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin term meaning “to stick to things decided.” When a Google engineer was fired this month after his 10-page document rebuking the company`s diversity efforts became public, it raised questions about whether freedom of expression in the workplace is protected. There is no general protection, and the scope of protection depends on many factors. Continue reading.. We will see that many defendants accused of impossible attempts do not in fact attempt the crime of which they are accused. They just think they are committing a crime.

On July 5, President Donald Trump tweeted that undocumented or illegal immigrants should be immediately forced to leave the United States without judicial review. “When people, with or without children, enter our country, we must tell them to leave without our country. The country is forced to undergo a long and costly process. Tell people “OUT,” and they have to leave, as they would if they were standing on your front yard. The hiring of thousands of `judges` does not work and is unacceptable. » Continue reading. In law, a question of law, also known as a question of law, is a question that must be answered by applying the relevant principles of law to the interpretation of the law. [1] Such a question is different from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to the facts and evidence and conclusions arising from those facts. Answers to legal questions are usually expressed in the form of general principles of law and can be applied to many situations rather than depending on specific circumstances or facts. An answer to a legal question, as it applies to the particular facts of a case, is often referred to as the conclusion of the law. Immediately after Florida passed sweeping legislation on March 9 to restrict the sale of certain firearms and firearm accessories, the National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit to prevent the law from going into effect.

Chris Cox, director of the NRA, said the NRA was “confident that the courts will uphold our view that Florida`s ban is a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment.” The skirmish raises the legal question of how far states can go to control guns. Continue reading. n. an actual case or event that must be proven in court by the presentation of evidence and that is evaluated by the assessor (a jury on a jury or by the judge if sitting without a jury). As COVID-19 continues its assault on the country, residents of more than half of the states have been ordered to stay home, and businesses, including restaurants, gyms, and entire shopping malls, have been shut down as governors take extraordinary measures nationwide to protect public health. What legal powers do these ordinances fall under – and are there legal limits to state action in the event of a health emergency? Continue reading. The answers to factual questions are determined by a Trier of Facts such as a jury or judge.