18:16 Mar 22, 2019 |
English to Dutch translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) / judgment | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 -2 | conclusies bij rechte |
|
Summary of reference entries provided | |||
---|---|---|---|
definitions |
|
Discussion entries: 8 | |
---|---|
conclusies bij rechte Explanation: letterlijk vertaald: conclusies bij rechte, ofwel "in rechte afdwingbaar" https://www.letselschademagazine.nl/aansprakelijkheid-oogheelkunde-opticien-optometrist/rb-rotterdam-160311-aansprakelijkheid-informed-conse |
| ||||||||||||
|
1 day 8 hrs |
Reference: definitions Reference information: A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be applied. For example, a conclusion of law may determine that evidence cannot be introduced in a trial, based on evidentiary rules excluding illegally obtained evidence. The choice to believe a certain party's testimony regarding the circumstances about how the evidence was obtained is truthful is a finding of fact. https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conclusion-of-law/ Question of law In law, a question of law, also known as a point of law, is a question that must be answered by applying relevant legal principles to interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles and can be applied to many situations rather than be dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a "conclusion of law." In several civil law jurisdictions, the highest courts consider questions of fact settled by the lower court and will only consider questions of law. They thus may refer a case back to a lower court to re-apply the law and answer any fact-based evaluations based on their answer on the application of the law. International courts such as the Benelux Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice will only answer questions of law, asked by judges of national courts if they are not certain about the interpretation of the law of multilateral organizations. While questions of fact are resolved by a trier of fact, which in the common law system is often a jury, questions of law are always resolved by a judge or equivalent. Whereas findings of fact in a common law legal system are rarely overturned by an appellate court, conclusions of law are more readily reconsidered. Question of fact In law, a question of fact, also known as a point of fact, is a question that must be answered by reference to facts and evidence as well as inferences arising from those facts. Such a question is distinct from a question of law, which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. The answer to a question of fact (a "finding of fact") usually depends on particular circumstances or factual situations. All questions of fact are capable of proof or disproof by reference to a certain standard of proof. Depending on the nature of the matter, the standard of proof may require that a fact be proven to be "more likely than not" (there is barely more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a preponderance of the evidence) or true beyond reasonable doubt. Answers to questions of fact are determined by a trier of fact such as a jury, or a judge. In many jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, appellate courts generally do not consider appeals based on errors of fact (errors in answering a question of fact). Rather, the findings of fact of the first venue are usually given great deference by appellate courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_of_law question of law - rechtsvraag http://tinyurl.com/yxs2us2n Noem de stappen van het juridisch stappenplan. 1. Juridisch relevante gegevens selecteren. (Wat zijn de feiten en is belangrijk voor het oplossen van het vraagstuk) 2. Formuleren van de rechtsvraag/rechtsvragen in juridische termen. (wordt meestal gegeven in de opdracht) 3. Rechtsgebied(en benoemen. (bundel A of B) 4. Rechtsbron(en) selecteren. (waar ga je het antwoord in zoeken) 5. Rechtsregels die van toepassing zijn selecteren, ontleden in voorwaarden en rechtsgevolgen benoemen. (let op of het gaat om cumulatief of alternatief) 6. Rechtsregels toepassen op de casus. 7. Formuleren van de juridische conclusie. https://summaries.studysmartwithchris.com/en/class-notes-jur... Opzet van het betoog Stappenplan Casus oplossen 1. Wat is de vordering of eis? Feitelijk geschil Hoe luidt de vordering van de eisende partij? En hoe luidt het verweer? Wat willen de partijen en op grond van welke feiten? 2. Wat is de rechtsgrond voor deze vordering of eis? Grondslag Wat is de juridische grondslag voor de vordering/het verweer? Waar in de wet kan ik de kapstok vinden om de vordering en het verweer aan op te hangen? Vier rechtsgronden in Nederland: - Wet - Gewoonte - Rechtspraak - Verdrag 3. Hoe luidt de algemene rechtsvraag? Rechtsvraag Welke vraag moet de rechter UITEINDELIJK beantwoorden? 4. Hoe luidt de toegespitste rechtsvraag? Toegespitste rechtsvraag Welk element van de rechtsvraag is het meest doorslaggevend? 5. Juridische conclusie? Betoog Geef de juridische argumentatie die de vordering of het verweer ondersteunt. https://www.studeersnel.nl/nl/document/universiteit-leiden/r... |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.