Interrogations are used to obtain relevant information that a party has about a case, but they cannot be used to obtain privileged communication. The question must be formulated precisely in such a way as to give rise to an answer relevant to the questions in question. A party may obtain information of which it has personal knowledge or which may require verification of its records in order to respond. The Federal Code of Civil Procedure and the rules governing state judicial procedures provide that if the examinations require the disclosure of information in the company`s records, the party to whom the request is served may name the documents containing the answers, thus allowing the requesting party to find the answer on his own. No party may be compelled to answer interrogations concerning matters beyond its control. Objections may be raised to the questions submitted, and a party is not required to answer them until a court has established their validity. “The term point of law used by the legislature in this decree is prima facie a technical term well understood by lawyers. A point of law so interpreted would include (without even attempting an approximate and exhaustive definition, which would be impossible) questions relating to the scope, effect or application of a rule of law applied by the courts to determine the rights of the parties; And through its long-standing use, the term question of law has been applied to questions that, if they arise in a trial by a judge and jury, would be left exclusively to the judge to decide. “Written questions submitted to a party by his adversary in order to obtain answers, prepared in writing and signed under oath, relevant to the issues in dispute in a dispute. In law, a question of fact, also known as a question of fact, is a question that must be answered by reference to the facts and evidence, as well as the conclusions arising from those facts. Such a question is different from a point 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] n.
a series of written questions to a litigant asked by the opposing party as part of the pre-litigation investigation. These questions must be submitted in writing under oath or under penalty of perjury within a certain period of time (for example, 30 days). Several states require basic hearings on a printed form, with permission for “additional” hearings specifically relevant to the trial. Usually, it is common for lawyers to prepare questions and for the responding party to receive assistance from their lawyer to understand the (sometimes hidden) meaning of the questions and avoid wording in their answers that could be interpreted against the answering party. Objections to relevance or clarity may be raised either when responding to hearings or when used at the main hearing. Most States limit the number of interrogations that can be conducted without the Court`s authorization in order to prevent the questions from being a means of repression rather than a source of information. While useful for obtaining basic information, they are much easier to ask than to answer and are often intentionally cumbersome. In addition, parties may request statements (preliminary examination before a court reporter) or “applications for admission”, which must be answered in writing. All questions of fact can be proven or refuted by reference to a particular standard of proof. Depending on the nature of the case, the standard of proof may require that a fact be true as “more likely than not” (there is little more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a balance of probabilities) or beyond a reasonable doubt. A case before an appellate court that requires the application of legal principles. It is questionable whether the facts of the case lend themselves to a principle of law on which the trial judge can decide whether or not they are applicable.
This interlocutory decision may have important procedural implications and, if it forms the basis of the appeal, it constitutes a question of law. A question of law involves the interpretation of principles that are potentially applicable to other cases. On the other hand, a question of fact requires an interpretation of the circumstances of the case. The clarification of questions of fact is the main task of the jury. The clarification of legal issues is a main task of the judge. If the pleadings and initial evidence in a case show that there is no factual dispute between the parties, a court of a party may render summary judgment. Summary judgment is a final judgment of the court on the merits before trial. A court may render summary judgment in a matter that does not involve disputes of fact, because such a case raises only one or more points of law, so the jury`s function of clarification of the facts is not required. Interrogations are an investigative tool that allows parties to obtain answers to specific questions about a case before trial. Hearings are lists of questions that are sent to the other party and must be answered in writing. You can use questions to uncover facts about a case, but they cannot be used for questions that draw a legal conclusion. For example, in the case of a car accident, you could ask, “Was the vehicle registered in your name in the accident?” but you could not ask, “Was it your fault?” In a custody case, you might ask, “How many doctor`s appointments have you attended?” but you might not ask, “Is it in the best interests of the child to live with me?” All “questions of law” that arise before, during and sometimes after a trial must be decided only by the judge and not by the jury.
“Legal questions” are distinct from “questions of fact,” which are decided by the jury and only by the judge when there is no jury. See: Question of fact, judge of fact, judge) The distinction between “law” and “fact” has been blurred wherever it is used. For example, the common law required that a plaintiff`s claim in a civil suit set out only the “facts” of his or her case, not the “legal findings.” Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to say 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 finding 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 still cannot agree. In several civil courts, the highest courts consider questions of fact to be decided by the lower courts and deal only with questions of law. They can therefore refer a case to a lower court to reapply the law and respond to fact-based assessments based on their response to the application of the law. International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice respond to legal questions raised by judges of national courts only if they are uncertain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organisations. You may receive interrogations with questions that require legal conclusions or that you consider irrelevant. How can I answer questions? “Interpretation becomes a question of law once the true meaning of the words in which an instrument has been expressed and the circumstances accompanying it, if any, have been established as facts. The meaning of an ordinary English word, technical or commercial terms and latent ambiguities and the discovery of the circumstances accompanying them (if relevant) are questions of fact.