Talk:Question of law
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The content of Question of fact was merged into Question of law. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Merge with "Question of fact" and "Trier of fact"
[edit]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?
[edit]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?
[edit]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)
Class
[edit]I should have used this standard edit summary: Assess as a start class article: has sufficient information, sources, sections. At least 250 words of text. This is part of an ongoing project to re-assess all Legal stubs. Accord with User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)