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 Rhode Island, during a bench trial, where the trial is conducted before a judge without a jury, the judge assumes the role of fact-finder. The judge's responsibility is to evaluate the evidence presented and make written statements known as 'findings of fact' based on what they determine to be true. These findings carry the same weight as a jury's verdict in a jury trial and are critical when the case is appealed. The trial judge has the discretion to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimonies, choosing to believe or disbelieve witnesses as they see fit. On appeal, the trial court's findings of fact are given considerable deference and can only be overturned if they are found to be clearly erroneous or if there is a lack of evidence to support them. This high level of deference is due to the trial judge's unique position to directly observe witness testimony and evidence presentation. Conversely, conclusions of law made by the judge, such as the application of legal principles to the facts, are reviewed de novo on appeal, meaning the appellate court can substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court. An example of a finding of fact would be the judge's decision on whether age discrimination occurred, while a conclusion of law would be the judge's determination of the applicability of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to the employer in question.