Pure legal-meaning disputes can arise where both sides agree on all facts.

Evidence

Disputes About the Facts In some cases, the disputing parties agree about the interpretation and application of the law but offer differing versions of the facts. A criminal assault case, for example, may turn entirely on the identity of the assailant, or a robbery case on the defendant’s claim that the victim actually owed him. the money he took. Similarly, civil suits may focus on such questions as whether it was the defendant company’s drug that produced the plaintiff’s medical problems, or whether an employee was refused a promotion because of her race or gender. … Disputes About the Law In some cases, both parties agree on the relevant facts but disagree on the application of the law to those facts. In a criminal case, for example, the prosecution and defense may agree that a police search uncovered evidence of wrongdoing but disagree about whether the search was legal. … Mixed Disputes Involving Both Facts and Law In some cases, the questions of fact and law are intertwined. For example, when a defendant claims to have shot someone in self-defense, the outcome of the case depends on the facts surrounding the shooting and on the legal definition of “self-defense.” — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1276 (#expands, via linked claim)

Value judgments inhere throughout; it is not a mechanical process. Values do not form in a vacuum; their range depends always on factual limitations. Thus, judges’ decisions are governed by their beliefs about facts as well as abstract rules; the act of deciding involves both the determination of material facts and the determination of what rules are to be applied to the facts. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 160 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

This is because judge-made law, in the sense of either creating precepts or interpreting statutes and regulations, is affected by the facts of particular cases, as well as by social and philosophical considerations. Professor Levi says that “this change in the rules is the indispensable dynamic quality of law. It occurs because the scope of a rule of law, and therefore its meaning, depends upon a determination of what facts will be considered similar to those present when the rule was first announced. The finding of similarity or difference is the key step in the legal process.” — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 151 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Judicial discretion is constrained but never wholly eliminated. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 198; Litigation disputes fall into fact, law, or mixed categories — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1276; The scope and meaning of legal rules depend on factual similarities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 151 (+1 more)

Related

• Litigation disputes fall into fact, law, or mixed categories (similarity 0.86)
• Judicial decisions are governed by beliefs about facts and rules (similarity 0.80)
• Judges rely on personal values when competing legal principles are evenly balanced (similarity 0.80)
• Judging requires selecting relevant facts and evaluating relative values (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Litigation disputes fall into fact, law, or mixed categories #expands (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1276
• Judicial decisions are governed by beliefs about facts and rules #corroborates (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 160
• The scope and meaning of legal rules depend on factual similarities #qualifies (0.72) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 151