IRAC案例分析方法

1、The Sections of an IRACedit IssueThe I RAC starts with a statement of the issue or questi on at hand. In the issue section of an I RAC it is importa nt to state exactly what the question of law is.edit RulesThe rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue at hand The rule section of a

2、n IRAC is the statement of the rules pertinent in deciding the issue stated Rules in a comm on law jurisdiction derive from court case precedent and statute. The information ineluded in the rules section depends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand. If the question states a specific ju

3、risdiction then it is proper to include rules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta. This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand. The rules section needs

4、to be a legal summary of all the rules used in the analysis and is often written in a meLriner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rulesedit Application/AnalysisThe application / analysis section of an IRAC applies the rules developed in the rules sectio

5、n to the specific facts of the issue at hand This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain

6、or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented The application/analysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at handedit ConclusionThe conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the question presented in the

7、issue section of the IRAC It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis This section restates the issue and provides the final answeredit CriticismIRAC has many proponents and opponents The main arguments of the propon

8、ents of the I RAC methodology say it reduces legal reaso ning 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 I RAC is a very useful tool. The oppon

9、ents of the IRAC fal1 into two categoriesThe first category are those who object to using an I RAC because of its strict and unwieldy format Most of these critics offer an alternative versio n of the I RAC such as MI RAT, IDAR, CREAC, TREACC, CRuPAC, ISAAC and I LAC Each new iterati on is supposed t

10、o cure the defects of the I RAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format A very good example of such an alter native format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in the beg inning and the end which i

11、s said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning. It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarityThe seco nd category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends t

12、o lead to overwriting, and oversimplifying the 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 importanee of an open format amiable to the writer is

13、supposed to let the legal reasonets concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focusedit An Example IRACA generic IRAC on a law school exam would consist of an answer to a question. The following e

14、xample demonstrates a generic IRAC as an answer to a questio n.Person A walks into a grocery store and picks up a loaf of bread He then stuffs the bread beneath his jacket A security attendant sees him and follows him to the cash register Person A passes through without stopping to pay for anything

15、The security attendant stops him at the gate He detains person A while he interrogates him Person A is unresponsive and uncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveled at him by the security attendant Person A is held for a period of two hours at the end of which it is found

16、 that he had actually put the loaf of bread back and was not steal ing. Pers on A sues the grocery store for false imprisonment. Would person A prevail in court?IssueThe issue here is whether person A could prevail in court by alleging that he was falsely imprisoned.RulesMost jurisdictions in the Un

17、ited States allow recovery for false imprisonment. The courts look at two elements in determining whether a person has been falsely imprisoned, namely just cause and authority In looking at the element of just cause, courts further analyze two factors： reasonable suspicion and the enviTonment in whi

18、ch the actions take placeIf a person suspects that he is being deprived of property legally attached to him and he can show that his suspicions are reasonable then he is said to have a reasonable suspicion. Courts also look at whether the activity in question took place in an environment where steal

19、ing is common. Crowded public places and shops are considered to be more justifiable places where a person could have just cause for reasonable suspicion in comparison to private property or sparsely populated areasIn looking at the other element of authority, the courts tend to favor people directl

20、y charged with handling security as people with the authority to detain a person in comparison to private individuals The courts have made exceptions in the favor of the person conducting the detention if he is a shopkeeper This special privilege is called the shopkeeper's privilege. In general

21、the element of authority is usually seen as one part of a two part legal justification for legally justifiable detention. For example in cases involving detention by an officer of the law, courts have ruled that the officer has to have both just cause and authority Authority in itself is not enough

22、The same reasoning applies to all detaining individuals Exceptions are made in the case where a perso n of authority has to con duct an in vestigati on with just cause and courts usually grant a reasonable amount of time in detention for this purpose Here the reasonable amount of time a person can b

23、e kept in detention is directly related to the circumstances under which the detention takes placeApplication/AnalysisPerson A was conducting his activity in a crowded place that happened to be a grocery store He was further detained by a security attendant The security attendant had seen him pick u

24、p a loaf of bread and walk past the cash register without paying The security attendant detained him until he discovered that no theft had taken place Person A was subsequently released upon this determination of factA court looking at these facts would try to apply the two elements of false impriso

25、nnient. The first element of false imprisonment is just cause The first factor of just cause is reasonable suspicion. The security attendant saw person A pick up a loaf of bread and stuff it beneath his jacket This is an uncommon action as most grocery shop customers usually do not hide produce unde

26、r their personal belongings. The security attendant, therefore, has reasonable suspicion because a reasonable person in his place would have also considered this action to be suspicious. Person A further walks by the cash register without paying The security attendant has already seen person A hidin

27、g the bread under his jacket and honestly believes that person A is still in possession of the loaf of bread A reasonable person in the security attendant's stead would arguably act to stop person A. Thus, this seems to satisfy the first factor of the element of just cause, reasonable suspicionT

28、he second factor of the element of just cause is the environment The activity takes place in a grocery store A grocery store is usually a place where shoplifters and other thieves operate regularly. This reduces the burden of just cause placed on the person performing the detention. The security att

29、endant has to be un usually vigi la nt and suspicious of a person1 s motive because of his location. This then seems to satisfy the second factor of the element of just cause, environmentThe second element of false imprisonment is authority The person performing the detention of A is the security at

30、tendant of the grocery store He is the person charged with securing the grocery store and its property The security attendant sees person A put the loaf of bread underneath his coat and walk through the checkout without paying. The security attendant now has to act because he has been charged with t

31、he security of the store and he has just cause The security attendant performs the investigation after he puts person A in detention and it takes two hours Two hours might seem like an unreasonable amount of time but given the fact that person A was unresponsive and uncooperative it seems to be reasonable It also seems as if the security attendant was doing his due diligenee as he releases person A as