Conclusion of Law

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.

Conclusion of Law

The rule by which the rights of parties in a lawsuit are determined by a judge's application of relevant statutes or legal principles to the facts of the case that have been found to be true by the jury. The final judgment or decree rendered by a court based upon the verdict reached by the jury. Legal principles that provide the basis for the decision rendered by a judge in a case tried without a jury or with an Advisory Jury after certain facts have been established.

Under rules of federal Civil Procedure, conclusions of law made in such cases must be stated separately from the findings of fact.

conclusion of law

n. a judge's final decision on a question of law which has been raised in a trial or a court hearing, particularly those issues which are vital to reaching a judgment. These may be presented orally by the judge in open court, but are often contained in a written judgment in support of his/her judgment such as an award of damages or denial of a petition. In most cases either party is entitled to written conclusions of law if requested. (See: judgment)

References in periodicals archive ?
In addition to interpretations of relevant authorities, a conclusion of law may also set forth an administrative law judge's ultimate determination on whether a respondent committed the violations at issue in an administrative complaint.
073(5) ("The determination of whether or not a licensee has violated the laws and rules regulating the profession, including a determination of the reasonable standard of care is a conclusion of law to be determined by the board, or department when there is no board, and is not a finding of fact to be determined by the administrative law judge.
To view the "Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Consent Order" for Citigroup, please go to: http://www.
In Barfield, the court held that the agency did not have the authority to review a conclusion of law in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) labeled tendered evidence as hearsay.
In Deep Lagoon, the court held that the Department of Environmental Protection did not have the authority to review a conclusion of law in a recommended order which related to the application of collateral estoppel, stating:
That means there is no such thing as a recommended conclusion of law over which an agency does not have substantive jurisdiction.
In Deep Lagoon, the court held that an agency (DEP) did not have substantive jurisdiction to consider a conclusion of law concerning the application of collateral estoppel.
Thus, there should never be an instance when an agency is confronted by a conclusion of law in a recommended order based upon administrative rules outside that agency's substantive jurisdiction.
Only when a conclusion of law or mixed question of law and fact relates specifically to an area of an agency's expertise should the appellate court accord deference to the agency.
The agency must state its reasons with particularity, and must find that its substituted conclusion of law is at least as reasonable as the conclusion which is rejected.