IRAC案例分析方法

1、IRAC案例分析方法The Sectio ns of an IRACedit IssueThe IRAC starts with a statement of the issue or question at hand. Inthe issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what thequesti on of lawis.edit RulesThe rules sect ion ofan IRAC follows the stateme nt of the issue at hand.The rule secti

2、on of an IRAC is the stateme nt of the rules pert inent indeciding the issue stated. Rules in a commoriaw jurisdictionderive fromcourt case precedent and statute . The information included in the rules section depends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand. Ifthe question states a specif

3、ic jurisdictionthen it is proper to includerules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often made inthe rule section is a cleardelineationof rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta . This helps make a correct legal analysisof the issue at hand. The rules sect ion n eed

4、s to be a legal summary ofall the rules used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise an alytically conden ses in formatio n into applicable rules.edit Application/AnalysisThe application/ analysis section of an IRAC applies the rules developedin the rules sect

5、 ion to the specific facts of the issue at hand. This secti on uses on ly the rules stated in the rules sect ion of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the an alysis. It is importa nt in this sect ion to apply the rules to the facts of the case a

6、nd explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented. The application/analysissectionis the most importa nt secti on of an IRAC because it develops the an swer to the issue at hand.edit ConclusionThe conclusion section of an IRACdirectlyanswers the question prese

7、ntedin the issue secti on of the IRAC. It is importa nt for the methodology of the IRAC that the con clusi on sect ion of the IRAC not in troduce any new rules or an alysis. This sect ion restates the issue and provides the final answer.edit CriticismIRAC has many prop onents and opp onen ts. The ma

8、in argume nts of the proponents of the IRAC methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis. Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that the IRAC is a ver

9、y useful tool. The opp onents of the IRAC fall in to two categories.The first category are those who object to using an IRAC because of its strict and un wieldy format. Most of these critics offer an alter native version of the IRAC such as MIRAT, IDAR, CREAC, TREACC, CRuPACSAAC and ILAC. Each new i

10、teration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depe nding upon the format. A very good example of such an alter native format is the CREACvhich is said to offer more clarity and congruity. They argue this based upon the repetition of the con clusi on in the beg i

11、nning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reas onin g. It also has an expla nati on of the rules secti on which helps deli neate rules into stat ing the rules and expla ining the rules for further clarity.The second category of critic

12、s of the IRAC say that it tends to lead to overwriting, and oversimplifyingthe complexity of proper legal analysis.This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer. The importance of an open

13、 format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reas oners concen trate on express ing their argume nt to the best of their abilities in stead of concen trat ing on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus.edit An Example IRACA gen eric IRACo n a law school examwould con sist o

14、f a n an swer to a questi on. The follow ing example dem on strates a gen eric IRAC as an an swer to a questi on.Pers on A walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread. He the n stuffs the bread ben eath his jacket. A security atte ndant sees him and follows him to the cash register. Pers

15、 on A passes through without stopp ing to pay for anything. The security attendant stops him at the gate. Hedeta ins pers on A while he in terrogates him. Pers on A is un resp on sive and uncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by the security atte ndant. Pers

16、 on A is held for a period of two hours at the end of which it is found that he had actually put the loaf of bread back and was not steali ng. Pers on A sues the grocery store for false imprisonment. Would person A prevail in court?IssueThe issue here is whether pers on A could prevail in court by a

17、lleg ing that he was falsely impris on ed.RulesMost jurisdictions in the United States allow recovery for false impris onment. The courts look at two eleme nts indeterm ining whether a pers on has bee n falsely impris on ed, n amely just cause and authority .In look ing at the eleme nt of just cause

18、, courts further an alyze two factors:reas on ablesuspicion and the environment in which the actions take place.If a pers on suspects that he is being deprived of property legally attached to him and he can show that his suspici ons are reas on able the n he is said to have a reas on able suspici on

19、. Courts also look at whether the activity in question took place in an en vir onment where steali ng is com mon. Crowded public places and shops are considered to be more justifiable places where a pers on could have just cause for reas on able suspici on in comparis on to private property or spars

20、ely populated areas.In looking at the other element of authority, the courts tend to favor people directly charged with handling security as people with the authority to detain a person in comparison to private in dividuals. The courts have made exceptio ns in the favor of the pers on con duct ing t

21、he dete nti on if he is a shopkeeper. This special privilege is called the shopkeepers privilege . In qeneral the element of authority is usually seen as one part of a two part legal justification for legallyjustifiable detention. For example in cases involving dete nti on by an officer of the law,

22、courts have ruled that the officer has to have both just cause and authority. Authority in itself is not eno ugh. The samereas oning applies to all deta ining in dividuals. Excepti ons are made in the case where a pers on of authority has to con duct an inv estigati on with just cause and courts usu

23、ally grant a reas on able amount of time in dete nti on for this purpose. Here the reas on able amount of time a person can be kept in detention is directly related to the circumstances under which the detention takes place.Applicati on/An alysisPers on A was con duct ing his activity in a crowded p

24、lace that happe ned to be a grocery store. He was further deta ined by a security atte ndant. The security atte ndant had see n him pick up a loaf of bread and walk past the cash register without paying. The security attendant detained him until he discovered that no theft had take n place. Pers on

25、A was subseque ntly released upon this determ in ati on of fact.A court looking at these facts would try to apply the two eleme nts of false impris onment. The first eleme nt of false impris onment is just cause. The first factor of just cause is reas on able suspici on. The security atte ndant saw

26、pers on A pick up a loaf of bread and stuff it ben eath his jacket.This is an un com mon acti on as most grocery shop customers usually do not hide produce under their personal belongings. The security atte ndant, therefore, has reas on able suspici on because a reas on able pers on in his place wou

27、ld have also con sidered this action to be suspicious. Pers on A further walks by the cash register without pay ing. The security atte ndant has already see n pers on A hidi ng the bread un der his jacket and hon estly believes that pers on A is still in possessi on of the loaf of bread. A reas on a

28、ble pers on in the security attendants stead would arguably act to stop person A. Thus, this seems to satisfy the first factor of the element of just cause, reas on able suspici on.The sec ond factor of the eleme nt of just cause is the en vir onment. The activity takes place in a grocery store. A g

29、rocery store is usually a place where shoplifters and other thieves operate regularly. This reduces the burde n of just cause placed on the pers on perform ing the dete ntio n. The security atte ndant has to be unu sually vigila nt and suspicious of a persons motive because of his location. This the

30、n seems to satisfy the second factor of the element of just cause, en vir onment.The sec ond eleme nt of false impris onment is authority. The person performing the detention of A is the security attendant of the grocery store. He is thepers on charged with securi ngthe grocery store and its propert

31、y. The security atte ndant sees pers on A put the loaf of bread undern eath his coat and walk through the checkout without pay ing. The security attendant now has to act because he has been charged with the security of the store and he has just cause. The security atte ndant performs the inv estigat

32、i on after he puts pers on A in detention and it takes two hours. Twohours might seemlike an un reas on able amount of time but give n the fact that pers on A was un resp on sive and un cooperative it seems to be reas on able. It also seems as if the security atte ndant was doing his due dilige nee as he releases per