Also known as: matters of fact · question of fact
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A factual issue requiring resolution through evidence and determination by the trier of fact rather than by application of legal principles alone.
CodeCraft emailed MetroElectro a software licensing proposal without an expiration date. MetroElectro completed its internal review and sent an acceptance nearly two months later after prices had shifted. The court must decide whether the delay fell within a reasonable time under all circumstances at the time of the offer and attempted acceptance.
Maurice Marshall faced an attacker swinging a bottle at his head in a crowded bar. Marshall responded by striking the attacker once with a metal chair leg. The jury must determine whether the resulting injury created a substantial risk of fatal consequences or permanent loss of function to qualify as serious bodily harm.
Sherbert sought unemployment benefits after refusing Saturday work on religious grounds. The agency denied the claim on the ground that she had not shown the required sincerity and consistency of her beliefs. The court must resolve whether her observance practices actually conflicted with the work requirement as a factual matter.
Appellant joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1957 while working at a textile mill in South Carolina that permitted a five-day work week. In 1959 the employer changed the schedule to a six-day week that included Saturday shifts for all employees. Appellant was discharged because she would not work on Saturday, the Sabbath day of her faith. After her discharge, appellant sought employment with three other mills in the Spartanburg area but found no suitable five-day work available. She filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act. The Employment Security Commission denied the claim, finding that her restriction on Saturday work made her ineligible for benefits. The Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County sustained the Commission's decision. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. The state supreme court rejected appellant's claim that the denial of benefits abridged her right to the free exercise of her religion under the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal. The case was argued on April 24, 1963, and decided on June 17, 1963.
View caseWilliams faced a felony charge and requested a twelve-person jury. The state provided only six jurors under its criminal procedure rules. The court must determine whether the smaller jury panel in fact impaired the deliberative process or fairness of the verdict.
The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 16, secures the right of trial by jury to all and provides that in all criminal prosecutions the jury shall consist of twelve men, except in prosecutions for crimes punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, in which case the jury shall consist of six men. Petitioner Williams faced charges of robbery, a felony carrying a potential sentence of life imprisonment. Williams filed a timely motion requesting a jury of twelve persons, which the trial court denied in accordance with state law. The case proceeded to trial before a jury composed of six members. Following the presentation of evidence, the six-person jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. Williams appealed his conviction to the Florida District Court of Appeal. The appellate court rejected his constitutional claim and affirmed the judgment. The United States Supreme Court thereafter granted a writ of certiorari, restricting its inquiry to the issues of jury size and the necessity of a unanimous verdict in state criminal prosecutions for serious offenses.
View caseReynolds was prosecuted for practicing polygamy under federal law. He claimed his conduct was compelled by sincere religious conviction. The court must decide whether his religious beliefs actually required the conduct as a factual question separate from the legal validity of the statute.
George Reynolds, a longtime member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was indicted in the District Court of the third judicial district of the Territory of Utah for bigamy after entering a second marriage to Amelia Jane Schofield while his first wife remained alive. Reynolds had obtained permission from recognized church authorities to contract the polygamous marriage. He and other male church members believed the practice was a religious duty enjoined by divine revelation to Joseph Smith. Refusal would bring damnation when circumstances permitted. The grand jury that returned the indictment consisted of fifteen persons under a territorial statute. This differed from the sixteen to twenty-three persons required by federal statute for United States circuit and district courts. During voir dire, the trial court overruled Reynolds's challenges for cause to prospective jurors including Charles Read who stated they had formed opinions about the case. The court sustained government challenges to other prospective jurors who were or had been living in polygamy. At trial the prosecution offered the transcript of testimony given by Amelia Jane Schofield at an earlier prosecution of Reynolds for the same offense under a different indictment. The government showed that subpoenas were served at Reynolds's house. An officer was told the witness was not at home. Reynolds declined to disclose her location. A later subpoena with the correct name also failed to locate her. Reynolds had been present and able to cross-examine at the prior trial but offered no explanation for her absence. Reynolds requested a jury instruction that he must be acquitted if the jury found he acted in the sincere belief that the second marriage fulfilled a religious duty. The court refused and instead instructed that religious belief could not excuse a knowing violation of the criminal law. The court further instructed the jury to consider the consequences of polygamy for innocent women and children. Reynolds was convicted and the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of error.
View casePrecision Auto listed Luis as its registered agent at a mailbox store. Luis believed he had only rented a mailbox and never agreed to accept legal process. The court must determine whether the partnership's filing accurately reflected actual consent as a factual matter.
Appellants Harris and Hart were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. The government's evidence rested principally on the testimony of an eyewitness to the homicide who stated that he was inside the Federal City Liquor Store at 943 Ninth Street, N.W., at approximately 2:30 on the afternoon of January 21, 1975, when appellants and two other men, one of whom became the murder victim, entered the store. They appeared to the witness to be somewhat intoxicated. An argument ensued between Hart and the victim regarding a gun, and Hart pulled an ice pick out of his coat pocket and held it in his hands towards the victim's face. Hart then told the victim you are going to get my gun or else I am gonna kill you. According to the eyewitness, Harris then stated let's kill the victim. When the manager of the liquor store insisted they take the argument outside, Hart, the victim, and an unidentified third man left the premises, crossed the street and turned into a nearby alley. Harris followed shortly thereafter but he did not enter the alley until after the unidentified third man exited the alley and proceeded down Ninth Street. The witness then left the liquor store and walked down the street to get a direct view of the alley. A scuffle had started between the three men. Harris grabbed the victim from the back. The man was wrestled to the ground by both defendants and Harris struck him on top of the head. Hart then proceeded to stab the victim repeatedly with the ice pick. A second government witness was outside the liquor store during the time in which the homicide was committed. He testified that as Hart crossed the street he was holding the victim behind his neck. He also recalled that as Harris walked past him he said he stole his pistol and he is going to kill him. On January 22, 1975, the day after the homicide, the witness was shown an array of 10 photographs and he positively identified appellant Hart as the man who had been holding the victim behind the neck. Before his grand jury testimony on February 21, 1975, the witness was shown the exact same array of photographs with the exception that appellant Hart's photograph had been removed and replaced by a picture of Harris, and on that occasion the witness made a positive identification of Harris. Harris challenged his conviction on the ground that the court at a pretrial suppression hearing erroneously denied his motion to suppress identification evidence, and both appellants challenged the denial of their motions for judgment of acquittal.
View caseA matter of fact requires the trier of fact to weigh evidence and resolve what actually occurred or what a reasonable person would have understood. A matter of law instead applies legal rules to those facts. The distinction controls whether a judge or jury decides the issue and whether appellate review is de novo or deferential.
Supporting sources
When an offer states no deadline, the offeree's power of acceptance lasts a reasonable time. Whether a particular delay meets that standard depends on all circumstances existing when the offer was made and when acceptance was attempted, including industry practices and market volatility. That determination is reserved for the trier of fact.
Supporting sources
No. Only statements that create a false impression about an existing or past fact qualify. A reasonable person would understand opinions or sales puffing as non-factual, so they do not support a false pretenses claim.
Supporting sources
Factors such as the time, place, purpose, and similarity in quality of the employee's act must be evaluated from the specific circumstances of each case. Because these inquiries turn on evidence rather than legal rules alone, they are treated as matters of fact for the trier of fact.
Supporting sources
…direct burden upon religious practices" in that case than in this. With all respect, I think the Court is mistaken, simply as a matter of fact. The Braunfeld case involved a state criminal statute. The undisputed effect of that statute, as pointed out by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in his dissenting opinion in that case, was that "…