Sentences with phrase «finder of fact»

Hearings may be held by mental hygiene commissioners as finders of fact for the circuit court in all cases except missing person cases.

For a majority of the Court of Appeal, the conclusion these explanations were not sufficiently reasonable was ``... one that a properly instructed finder of fact, acting judicially, could have reached.»

The best way to serve pro se litigants is to ensure each litigant has the information and services necessary to present their cases to a patient and unbiased finder of fact.

It could include changing the adversarial nature of litigation to let finders of fact (judge or jury) engage litigants directly, making litigation a more honest search for truth.

2 - 4 are not answerable here - they rely on the particular circumstances, the evidence and the decision of the specific finder of fact (the judge / jury)

I can not do that without undermining the role of the jury as the exclusive finders of fact.

Based on this evidence, the Court of Appeals determined that no reasonable finder of fact could reasonably conclude that the officer deliberately intended to commit a wrongful act when he arrested the plaintiff.

If your finder of fact has to make guesses about what the right call is, you will always be saddled with their biases.

The Virginia Supreme Court states that under Code § 8.01 — 44.5, a finder of fact may award punitive damages if the evidence demonstrates:

In Carr v. Cinnamon, a California appellate court applied the same rule we have here in Maryland: the finder of fact can award whatever they want for noneconomic damages, including zero even when it seems preposterous that a person could suffer medical bills and have no pain and suffering.

The finder of fact (usually a jury) will take all evidence into account when making its decision, including any arguments proposed by the defendant.

The US Federal Rules of Evidence state expressly that authentication involves providing the basis on which the finder of fact could conclude that a document is what it purports to be.

@AlexanderA whether it is reasonable doubt is also a question for the finder of fact.

Of course they can, provided that the «finder of fact» accepts that the document is credible (for example, the prosecution might allege that the stamps are forged).

Whether they actually prove anything would depend upon the decision of the «Finder of fact», i.e., the judge or the jury.

When push comes to shove, the question becomes one of whether the copyright owners care and whether they can convince the finder of fact that your work is, in fact, «derivative» and is based upon THEIR particular work.

Instead, a holistic consideration of all of the facts and circumstances is made by a finder of fact using their best judgment.

This makes who the finder of fact is far more important, because the finder of fact's decision is far more likely to remain undisturbed than in a European setting.

The trial judge may not be the finder of facts that the death penalty is warranted in a particular case.

Florida law allows the finder of fact to place a value on the pain and suffering.

If, on a central issue, the plaintiffs fail to present at least some evidence on which the trial judge or finder of facts could base a finding in the plaintiffs» favour, no case has been made out and the defendants are entitled to a non-suit.»

The judge will act as the finder of fact and weigh all of the evidence that is presented.

Great bodily harm is a subjective term and the finder of fact (judge or jury) will determine if the victim's injuries are sufficient to warrant aggravated charges.

In addition to the defined terms that usually appear in these contracts, most of the ones that go to litigation also have critical computer industry terms of art that are undefined and would not have an obvious meaning to the finder of fact.

It's up to the finder of fact to decide what to believe and how much weight to give the various witnesses» testimony.

Provided that the state's interest in a punitive damages award is effective when a finder of fact announces a verdict that includes punitive damages.

According to Fagan, cybersecurity is «a one - way ratchet: all constituents, whether customers, regulators, business partners, claimant counsel and finders of fact, are increasingly aware of and focused on the risk [which] arises from operating...

The Virginia statute provides that in a case involving injury or death arising from motor vehicle or train accident the finder of fact (either the judge or jury) has the discretion to award punitive damages «if the evidence proves that the defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff or the defendant's conduct was so willful or wanton as to show a conscious disregard for the rights of others.»

Rather than setting off on an adversarial tone with the finder of fact trying to justify why you are there, the court's candor with counsel can be a fantastic segue to highlight the most contentious issues on the file and potentially pre-empt your opponent's biggest arguments.

In the situation you describe the person taking the pictures is not violating the mask law and should be acquitted at trial and possibly even before trial in a preliminary hearing, if charged with violating the mask law and if the finder of fact correctly ascertains the facts.

District Court, which heard the principal witness for the respondent testify for almost six days during the trial, fully understood both the applicable law and its role as a finder of fact.