Also known as: ultimate fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Facts essential to establishing the elements of a claim or defense and that directly determine the outcome of a legal dispute. These facts stand in contrast to evidentiary or mediate facts that merely supply support for reaching the ultimate determination.
Uma Underwood stood trial for robbing one victim during a rapid series of attacks captured on a single video recording. The jury acquitted her after expressly finding she was not the masked assailant shown in the footage. Prosecutors then charged her with robbing a second victim minutes later in the same episode using the identical recording. The prior acquittal resolved the ultimate fact of identity and bars the second prosecution.
Ulysses Usher filed a complaint alleging parallel pricing by telecommunications firms but supplied only conclusory assertions without supporting details. The court dismissed the action because the complaint failed to allege the ultimate facts needed to show an agreement rather than independent conduct. Without those facts the pleading could not survive a motion to dismiss.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ursula Ureña sued her employer after suffering injury on the job. The employer asserted an affirmative defense that required resolution of disputed facts about the plaintiff's employment status. The court held that the ultimate facts underlying the defense presented a jury question that could not be decided on a motion to strike.
Usman Uddin published an article accusing a corporation of product defects. The corporation sued for defamation and prevailed at trial on a finding of actual malice. On appeal the reviewing court independently examined the ultimate fact of actual malice rather than deferring to the jury's determination.
Urban Utley sued his former employer alleging age discrimination after termination. The plaintiff introduced evidence of age-related comments by supervisors and a pattern of replacing older workers. The court held that the ultimate fact of discriminatory intent could be inferred from the circumstantial evidence without direct proof.
Courts historically limited collateral estoppel to ultimate facts because mediate facts were viewed as less reliably litigated. The distinction proved difficult to apply and has largely been abandoned in favor of broader preclusion rules.
Supporting sources
The defendant must demonstrate that the prior acquittal necessarily resolved an issue of ultimate fact in the defendant's favor. When identity is the only rational issue litigated, the acquittal precludes relitigation of that fact even in a prosecution involving a different victim.
Supporting sources
Pleading only ultimate facts provides notice of the claim without forcing the plaintiff to detail every piece of supporting evidence. The distinction between ultimate facts, evidentiary facts, and legal conclusions remains imprecise but turns on the level of detail required to state a cause of action.
Supporting sources
No. Collateral estoppel applies only when the acquittal necessarily decided an ultimate fact that the second prosecution would require the state to prove again. Separate offenses may proceed if each requires proof of a distinct ultimate fact not resolved in the first trial.
Supporting sources
…in each case largely one of degree and of fact—might reasonably reach an opposite conclusion from the Court of Appeals as to the ultimate fact whether the respondent was a statutory employer. At all events, the petitioner is plainly entitled to have an opportunity to try the issue under the Court of Appeals' interpretation. His…