Questions of fact in a court case are those that seek to establish the truth about events or circumstances. Examples of questions of fact that can be asked in a court case include: "Did the defendant commit the crime?" "Was the contract breached?" "Did the plaintiff suffer harm as a result of the defendant's actions?" These questions require evidence to be presented in order to determine the truth of the matter.
During a court trial, the defendant may be asked a variety of questions to establish their involvement in the case. Some common questions that may be asked include: Can you please state your name and occupation? Were you present at the scene of the incident in question? What actions did you take on the day of the incident? Did you have any interactions with the victim or other parties involved? Can you provide an alibi or evidence to support your innocence? Do you have any prior knowledge or involvement in the alleged crime? Have you been truthful in your statements to law enforcement and the court? Is there any additional information or evidence you would like to present in your defense? These questions are designed to help the court determine the defendant's role in the case and assess their credibility.
What is being asked? Question is incomplete.
An examination by court is a legal proceeding where a person is questioned under oath by the court or a designated officer. It is often used to gather evidence or obtain information relevant to a case. The individual being examined must provide truthful answers to the questions asked.
You cannot refuse a deposition. The court can compel you to attend. Questions are asked under oath and you may be able to "plead the 5th" on some questions if the implicate you in a crime, but you must show up.
You can post any questions you have but we can't do it for you.
Yes the high court can declare a law to be invalid only after fair trial and the reasoning behind such a move is that the decree is unconstitutional to Australia. The best example of this case of Tasmania v The Commonwealth, better known as the Tasmanian Dams Case. In this case the Commonwealth implemented legislation preventing the construction of the Franklin Dam. Tasmania contested this law in the High Court saying that it was unconstitutional. It was ruled that the law was valid under the constitution (section 51), so change was not enforced by the court. Such examples demonstrate a process like the one asked about in the above asked question.
Some of the earliest United States Supreme court cases date back to the 1700s. Some examples include the Van Staphorst v.Maryland case, the West v. Barnes case as well as the Hayburn's Case.
Contempt of Court is issued when a person has been hiding evidence from the court that could have helped them to solve the crime or civil case. Their only issued if the person has been asked by the court if they have any evidence for them if the person who has been asked replies no but knows that he has evidence he will be issued a Contempt of Court.
The prosecution (the accuser) gets to present their case first.
Watkins v. United States, 354 US 178 (1957)The Court favored Watkins, determining that Congress was not unlimited and was not given authority to inquire into private and personal affairs. In the case concerned, Watkins was not given time to determine whether the questions asked of him could be refused. See the related link for the case citation.
The opposing lawyer in a divorce case has the legal right to take your deposition. You'll will be answering questions under oath. The questions and answers will be recorded by a court reporter. When the deposition is over, you will be told you have the right to review a typed copy of the deposition and you will be asked if you want to waive that right.
Some people ask questions that are very difficult to answer or ask questions that break the rules of the site (in which case they will not be answered) but all the questions that appear are real questions asked by the users of WikiAnswers.com so they are not False questions.