Doing an assignment for class and don't know what it means to discuss issues of law and issues of fact.
Issues of law pertain to how the law should be interpreted where issues of fact pertain to how the events actually unfolded.
Are we talking bird law here? <iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YvSx7-CTTl4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Thread title sounds like one of those Xzibit memes. "YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKE A BRIEFCASE SO I PUT SOME BRIEFS IN YOUR CASE..."
No, it is similar. You're reading appellate cases. An appellate court usually can't decide an appeal based upon an issue of fact because the court wasn't at the trial (or hearing, etc) to see the live testimony and make decisions about witness credibility. All the appellate court has is a "dead" record, a transcript. Most cases involve a standard of review where deference is given to the fact-finder, the jury or sometimes judge if a bench trial, on all issues of fact. In other words, if there is conflicting testimony between witnesses, the appellate court will assume that the jury resolved these inconsistencies in a way that is consistent with the verdict. Because they usually cannot make decisions based upon the facts, the appellate court can only decide if the law was correctly applied in the case at bar. Usually this means that either the trial court was wrong about the law or misapplied the law to the facts of the case.
