Replies to post #47389 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rafunrafun]

Do you know how out of context this is? If you read this in full, you'd know that the judge made a temporary ruling, to later learn that government lied to him. So where it says "in order to investigative", that simply means that he scheduled a hearing for both sides to appear in front of him so that government can explain why they lied to him. He is not hiring any investigators nor doing any internet searches!

[louieblouie]

totally different type of investigation. Government concealed a material fact from the judge. 26 states sued because the president was granting illegals benefits congress did not pass laws to give. the government said they weren't giving anyone anything when in fact they were giving them work permits - 108k of them over a three month period. they told the judge they hadn't started processing yet which was false.

[centurycom]

Trier of fact

A trier of fact, or finder of fact, is a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred.[1] Various aspects of a case that are not in controversy may be the "facts of the case" and are determined by the agreement of the separate parties; the trier of fact need not decide such issues.

Contents
Juries
Judges
Administrative law judges
Mixed systems
See also
Notes and references
See also
JuriesEdit

Main article: jury
In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of fact. The jury finds the facts and applies them to the relevant statute or law it is instructed by the judge to use in order to reach its verdict. Thus, in a jury trial, the findings of fact are made by the jury while the judge makes legal rulings as to what evidence will be heard by the jury and what legal framework governs the case. Jurors are instructed to strictly follow the law as given by the judge, but are in no way obligated to do so. In some cases this amounts to jury nullification, e.g. the jury effectively re-writing the law or blatantly ignoring it in a particular case.

In Anglo-American–based legal systems, finding of fact made by the jury are not appealable unless clearly wrong to any reasonable person. This principle is enshrined in the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that "... no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

JudgesEdit

Further information: bench trial
In a bench trial, judges are professional triers of fact. In a bench trial, the judge makes both findings of fact and rulings of law.[2]

The findings of a judge of first instance are not normally disturbed by an appellate court.[3]

Administrative law judgesEdit

In the United States, an administrative law judge (ALJ) both presides over trials (and makes rulings of law) and adjudicates the claims or disputes (in other words, ALJ-controlled proceedings are bench trials) involving administrative law, but ALJs are not part of an independent judiciary.

Mixed systemsEdit

Main article: lay judge
In mixed systems, such as the judiciary of Germany, a mixture of both judges and lay judges are triers of fact.

See alsoEdit

Fact-finding
Notes and referencesEdit

W A Wilson, 'A Note on Fact and Law' (1963) 26 MLR 609, at p 613.
W A Wilson, 'A Note on Fact and Law' (1963) 26 MLR 609 – For discussion of affirmation of propositions to establish a legal conclusion – "Truth-questions", "Description- / Linguistic-questions", and "Probability-questions"
Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., 1919 S.C.(H.L.) 35, at p 36.
See alsoEdit

Court ruling
Fact-finding
Justifiable homicide


Read in another language
Wikipedia ® MobileDesktop
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Terms of UsePrivacy