3 ms·
This ruling doesn't establish a precedent. If it's appealed and upheld, that would establish a precedent. In the US, trial courts find rulings of fact, and app
by rosser 12y ago
This ruling doesn't establish a precedent. If it's appealed and upheld, that would establish a precedent.
In the US, trial courts find rulings of fact, and appellate courts find rulings of law. Only the latter create precedents.
- pdabbadabba 12y agoHalf right. Trial court judges make rulings of law, juried make findings of fact. An appellate court can then correct the trial court's legal errors, if necessary. But you're right that trial courts' legal rulings aren't precedential.
- rosser 12y agoYeah, "finding of fact" is a more apt phrasing than "ruling of fact". I thought of that after posting my comment, but felt it was a probably bit fine a distinction for the point I was making. Thanks for the clarification.