Can a judge make final decisions at a case conference, or only at a trial?

Generally, a judge does not make final decisions on contested issues at a case conference — conferences are meant to be informal, non-evidentiary steps focused on identifying issues, encouraging settlement, and managing the case, not a substitute for a full hearing with evidence and cross-examination. Final resolution of genuinely disputed issues usually requires either a settlement between the parties or a trial where evidence is properly presented and tested.

That said, a judge at a conference can make certain orders: procedural orders about timetables and disclosure, and, importantly, orders the parties agree to on consent, which can include temporary or even some final arrangements if both sides are in agreement. A conference is also where many cases actually get resolved in practice, not through a judge deciding for the parties, but because the discussion at the conference helps the parties reach their own agreement, which is then reflected in a consent order. The key distinction is between the judge imposing a decision on a contested issue, which doesn't happen at a conference, and the parties reaching their own agreement, which very much can.