Also known as: pure question of law · questions of law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal issue that a court resolves by applying legal principles without needing to determine disputed facts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Peak Performance and hundreds of employees file a wage suit alleging uniform overtime policies. The court must decide whether the policies violate federal law on the undisputed facts. That determination is a pure question of law for the judge even though individual damages may vary.
Pulse Media faces claims from over one hundred subscribers alleging identical billing errors. The court assesses whether the shared legal question of contract interpretation predominates over any individual issues. Resolution of that predominance inquiry is a pure question of law.
Platinum Partners challenges an NLRB ruling on whether certain workers qualify as employees under the statute. The court reviews the agency's statutory reading without factual disputes. That review treats the meaning of the statute as a pure question of law.
Patrick Phan appeals a state conviction claiming a procedural protection applies through the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decides whether the protection is fundamental without resolving factual conflicts. That determination is a pure question of law.
Phoenix Technologies proposes a nationwide settlement for asbestos claims. The court evaluates whether common legal questions predominate and whether the settlement is fair. Both inquiries present pure questions of law for judicial resolution.
Paula Pierce sues in bankruptcy court over a contract dispute arising from a core proceeding. The court must decide whether it has constitutional authority to enter final judgment. That structural question is a pure question of law.
The court decides pure questions of law such as whether undisputed facts give rise to a legal duty. The jury decides only factual questions about breach once the court supplies the legal standard.
Common questions of law that can be resolved without factual disputes support the commonality and predominance requirements under Rule 23. The court resolves those questions when deciding certification.
Pure questions of law receive de novo review because they can be resolved without reference to facts. Mixed questions involving application of law to facts receive more deferential review if supported by the record.
…L. Rev. 929, 943-948 (1965). [^maj-11]: See supra , n. 4, and text. Of course, the use of terms like voluntariness involves questions of law and terminology quite as much as questions of fact. See Collins v. Beto , 348 F. 2d 823, 832 (concurring opinion); Bator & Vorenberg, supra , n. 4, at 72-73. [^maj-12]: The Court's…