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 Oregon, during a bench trial (a trial without a jury), the judge serves as the trier of fact and is responsible for making 'findings of fact' based on the evidence presented. These findings are detailed written statements that outline what the judge believes to be the true facts of the case. The judge also evaluates the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimonies. The findings of fact by a judge in a bench trial hold the same weight as a jury's verdict in a jury trial and are crucial when the case is appealed. They help to establish whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's judgment. On appeal, these findings are given deference and are not easily overturned unless there is a clear error. In contrast, 'conclusions of law' are the judge's application of legal principles to the established facts, which result in a legal judgment. For example, in an age discrimination case, the judge's decision on whether discrimination occurred is a finding of fact, while the decision on the applicability of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is a conclusion of law. Both findings of fact and conclusions of law are subject to scrutiny on appeal, but findings of fact are generally upheld unless there is a significant mistake, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo (from the beginning) by the appellate court.