Conclusion of law is a statement of law as it applies to the specific facts of the case before the court. The difference between a conclusion of law and a finding of fact, is that a conclusion of law requires the exercise of judgment or application of legal principles. A conclusion of law is reviewed de novo by an appellate court. Look up Fact in Wiktionary, the free dictionary Fact is the following: Generally a fact is an event that has happened, or a statement that is generally regarded as true — whether one accepts it as real (true) or not. ... A court is an official, public forum which a public power establishes by lawful authority to adjudicate disputes, and to dispense civil, labour, administrative and criminal justice under the law. ... In law, the expression trial de novo literally means new trial. It is most often used in certain legal systems that provide for one form of trial, then another if a party remains unsatisfied with the decision. ... An appellate court is a court that hears cases in which a lower court -- either a trial court or a lower-level appellate court — has already made a decision, but in which at least one party to the action wants to challenge this ruling based upon some legal grounds that...
Supreme Court cases
SALVE REGINA COLLEGE, PETITIONER v. SHARON L. RUSSELL, 499 U.S. 225 (1991)
Law, by its capacity for growth and complexity, inevitably invites specialisation, and such specialisations generally correspond to the sectional concerns of those who utilise the services of lawyers.
First, if law is properly to discharge its role as a conduit from the source to the exercise of power, it should not itself influence the nature of the authority that it transmits.
It should not be thought that it is the exclusive province of law to produce problems, for the process also works in reverse, and the attitudes of administrators may themselves present an impediment to the proper functioning of law.
The law of war--and the international judiciary which is supposed to enforce it--is an extremely flawed implementation of a judicial rulebook which is better implemented within the borders of some of the democracies on this planet.
No-one within the borders of a democratic state should reasonably think himself exempt from the law of murder; yet the state itself, while sometimes calling, stridently but hypocritically, for the prosecution of others under war crime laws, is resolutely unwilling to submit itself, or its nationals, to these same laws no matter what.
In this context, an international law of war crimes may seem insignificant compared to the need for an international environmental law, cooperation in solving population problems, and promoting nuclear safety and disarmament in the face of "rogue" states.
Feeds |
Contact