RR0004
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 19,987
- Reaction score
- -26
So then you're saying that JS was using JA's impassioned version of the facts to base his decision...and NOT the law?"Legal facts!" :floorlaugh: Hey! Hey! Hey! We need to get squared away here. We want our WSers to be smart on these things. "Facts" are things that happened in the case. "Law" consists of the Constitutions (federal and state), statutes, ordinances, regulations (if binding), and case law (opinions of higher courts that are binding on the trial court's jurisdiction). Attorneys make offers of proof of facts (what they anticipate the witnesses would say or evidence would show) and apply the law to those facts to argue their conclusions. IRAC Issue, rules, analysis and conclusions.
PS- and surely you were not lauging at me for trying to explain.