Talk:Question of law

Merge with "Question of fact" and "Trier of fact"

I propose that this page be merged with Question of fact as there is a significant overlap in the content of the two pages as of right now, and the understanding of one requires the overall context of both.  Done

Along those lines, Trier of fact seems to be more or less the same topic as Question of fact just from a different viewpoint, so I'd also propose merging all 3 together. 2601:6:1B00:607:4D56:1A3B:BE11:22D1 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add examples please?

I really see only ONE example question, and the point of the example is that it's unclear whether it is a question of law or of fact. It's contained in the first block quotation, the question is the following statement (whether it is true): "On November 9, the defendant while driving his car negligently ran over the plaintiff at the intersection of State Street and Chestnut Street." That's posed as possibly fact or possibly law. I suspect that removing the word "negligently" might convert it into a pure question of fact. But I'm not sure, perhaps only the definition of negligence is a question of law.

Examples of each kind of question that are considered clear cut, rather than one example that is chosen to be ambiguous, would be good. 209.6.225.254 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Questionable source for footnote 4?

It looks to me like footnote 4 is from a source authored by Katz, but the body of the article seems to attribute it to Lessing. RoslinTollcross (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Lessing doesn't appear in the reference list. RoslinTollcross (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)