Legal Definitions - Question of law

A question of law refers to an issue in a legal case that must be decided solely by a judge, rather than by a jury. These questions involve the interpretation, application, or validity of legal rules, statutes, or precedents. Judges are responsible for determining what the law is, how it should be understood, and how it applies to the facts presented in a case.

Here are some examples illustrating questions of law:

• Interpreting a Statute

  Scenario: A state passes a new environmental protection law that prohibits "significant industrial discharge" into waterways. A manufacturing company is accused of violating this law, but they argue that their discharge, while present, does not meet the legal definition of "significant."

  Explanation: In this situation, the judge would need to interpret the phrase "significant industrial discharge" within the context of the statute. The judge would examine the legislative intent, any definitions provided within the law, and relevant legal precedents to determine the precise legal meaning of "significant." This interpretation is a question of law because it involves understanding and applying the written law, not deciding whether the company actually discharged (which would be a question of fact for a jury).

• Determining Applicable Law

  Scenario: A software company based in California enters into a contract with a client in New York. A dispute arises over a breach of contract, and the contract itself does not specify which state's laws should govern.

  Explanation: Before the case can proceed, the judge must decide whether California law or New York law applies to the contract dispute. This involves analyzing legal principles related to "choice of law" – rules that determine which jurisdiction's laws should be used when multiple jurisdictions are involved. The judge's decision on which set of laws governs the contract is a question of law, as it dictates the legal framework under which the entire case will be evaluated.

• Admissibility of Evidence

  Scenario: During a criminal trial, the prosecution attempts to introduce a confession made by the defendant. The defense attorney objects, arguing that the confession was obtained without the defendant being properly informed of their rights (Miranda rights) and therefore should not be allowed as evidence.

  Explanation: The judge must rule on whether the confession is admissible evidence. This involves a legal analysis of whether police procedures followed constitutional requirements for obtaining confessions. The judge will consider legal precedents and constitutional principles to decide if the evidence can be presented to the jury. This decision is a question of law because it concerns the proper application of legal rules regarding evidence and constitutional rights, not the factual truthfulness of the confession itself (which, if admitted, would be for the jury to weigh).