Also known as: legal conclusion · conclusions of law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statement applying legal standards or rules to facts rather than reciting raw facts. In pleadings such statements receive no presumption of truth. In nonjury trials courts must separate them from findings of fact.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Levi Lowe sued Landmark Realty for breach of a commercial lease. After a nonjury trial the district court found that Lowe paid rent on time and that the property suffered water damage. The court then separately stated the legal conclusion that Landmark Realty had not breached the lease covenant.
Lance Lee prevailed in a nonjury contract action against Lattice Systems. Twenty days later Lattice Systems moved for a new trial under Rule 59. The court opened the judgment, took additional testimony on damages, and amended its earlier conclusion of law that lost profits were too speculative.
Lillian Locke filed a complaint alleging that state legislative districts were incorrect, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The court dismissed the action because the allegations amounted only to legal conclusions without supporting facts showing a violation of equal protection.
Liam Larson alleged that Lone Peak Energy and other carriers conspired to restrain trade. The complaint described parallel pricing and market division but offered no direct evidence of agreement. The court treated the conspiracy allegation as a legal conclusion and dismissed the complaint.
Lily Lopez was charged with murder and raised an insanity defense. The prosecution introduced evidence of her planning the crime. The court treated the ultimate legal conclusion of sanity as one the jury must reach after weighing all evidence rather than as a presumption that could not be overcome.
Lila Lin challenged an agency order denying her compensation claim. The district court reviewed the administrative record and separated the agency's factual findings from its legal conclusion that the injury did not arise in the course of employment before entering judgment.
No. Pure legal conclusions receive no presumption of truth. Courts must disregard them when deciding whether factual allegations state a plausible claim.
Supporting sources
Yes. Rule 52(a)(1) requires the court to find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately so the parties and appellate court can understand the basis for the judgment.
Supporting sources
Yes. After a nonjury trial the court may open the judgment, amend its conclusions of law, and direct entry of a new judgment when justice requires.
Supporting sources
…existing Tennessee apportionment is "incorrect," "arbitrary," "obsolete" and "unconstitutional"amounting to nothing more than legal conclusionsdo not themselves save the complaint from dismissal. See Snowden v. Hughes , 321 U. S. 1; Collins v. Hardyman , 341 U. S. 651. Nor do those allegations shift to the appellees the…