En droit

15:47 May 25, 2019 

Interesting. Re "no-jury" cases, in the US we can have bench trials, i.e., the judge acts as both judge and jury (decides matters of law and matters of fact). So it's more accurate to say matters/questions of law are decided by the court and matters/questions of fact are decided by "the fact-finder," i.e. the jury in a jury trial and the judge in a bench trial.

We tend to start with the facts, then state the law, then argue -- using, as appropriate, inductive and/or deductive reasoning -- that given this law and these facts, the outcome/decision should be XYZ.

Of course, a good legal writer (or good litigator making opening/closing arguments) will state the facts with a slant, like a story, making their client seem intuitively like the good guy or less-bad guy, so the judge/jury wants to find in their favor. Then you present the law to illustrate how the judge/jury can justify finding in their favor.

15:05 May 25, 2019 

... both parts only for the judge to decide. These have been civil-only and no-jury cases, even though civil defamation cases in the UK can be heard by a jury that can award damages to the plaintiff/ claimant. The pleader/ drafter in FRE & SPA etc. routinely sets out the law, then tries to apply such - inductively - to the factual matrix.

14:56 May 25, 2019 

Interesting. When UK and Irish clients insist on those translations in French or Spanish pleading headers, what goes under those headers? Things that the party filing the pleading wants the judge vs. the jury to decide? Or things that are a legal situation or truth (e.g., Mr. X was married to Ms. Y when the child was born and is thus legally the father regardless of DNA or relationship) vs. a factual situation or truth (e.g., Mr. X has been raising the child despite not being married to Ms. Y and perhaps not being the DNA father)?

14:51 May 25, 2019 

Thanks for that. Readers may be interested to know that, over the years, UK (and Irish) legal clients - esp. Solicitors, judges & arbitrators themselves - insisted on the translation of 'matters of law' vs. 'matters of fact' for a French pleading (Statement of Case), judgment or award split into en droit & en fait parts - or in Spanish into headers of en derecho & de hecho.

14:30 May 25, 2019 

Interesting discussion to be had here. De jure is not synonymous with "as a matter of law" or "a question of law," at least not in US usage:

"the term matter of law is used to define a particular area that is the responsibility of the court [to decide]. Matter of law is distinguished from matter of fact. All questions concerning the determination of fact are for the jury" to decide. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Matter of Law (question of law/fact is synonymous).

In contrast, de facto/de jure distinguishes things which are true but not recognized as such in the law (e.g. a stay-at-home dad not married to the mom nor on the birth certificate may be a "de facto father"), vs. things which are recognized as true in the law (e.g., a man who's never met the kid and isn't even the DNA father may be the father "de jure" because he was married to the mom when it was born).

De jure/de facto: How is it true (in practice/from facts, vs. in the eyes of law)?

Matter of law/of fact: Who decides if it is true (the judge vs. the jury)?

But none of this relates to the OP's phrase, which just means in the law/legally, the person who does X must demonstrate a legitimate motive.