When the trial in a lawsuit is before a judge rather than a jury, the judge will make written statements of the facts the judge found to be true based on the evidence admitted in the trial. These written statements are called findings of fact, and in an appeal from a trial before a judge (a bench trial), the trial court’s findings of fact have the same force and dignity as a jury’s verdict upon questions.

In such a bench trial, the court (judge) is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. The trial court may believe one witness, disbelieve others, and resolve inconsistencies in any witnesses’s testimony.

The legal significance of a trial court’s findings of fact lies in their potential to rebut the presumption of the validity of the judgment when a party challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings on appeal.

In contrast, conclusions of law generally involve the application of the law to facts, resulting in a legal conclusion. For example, in an age discrimination lawsuit, the judge’s determination of whether the employee was discriminated against on the basis of age would be a finding of fact, and the judge’s determination of whether the employer was governed by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) would be a conclusion of law.

In Alaska, during a bench trial, where the trial is conducted before a judge without a jury, the judge makes what are known as 'findings of fact' based on the evidence presented. These findings carry the same weight as a jury's verdict and are critical in determining the outcome of the case. The judge has the authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and the value of their testimonies, choosing to believe some witnesses over others and resolving any inconsistencies. When a case is appealed, the trial court's findings of fact are given considerable deference and can counteract the presumption that the judgment was valid, provided that the appealing party can demonstrate that the evidence was legally or factually insufficient to support the findings. Conversely, 'conclusions of law' are the judge's application of legal principles to the established facts, leading to a legal judgment. For instance, in an age discrimination case, the judge's decision on whether discrimination occurred would be a finding of fact, while the decision on whether the employer falls under the jurisdiction of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) would be a conclusion of law.