IRAC案例分析方法

1、The Sections of an IRAC edit IssueThe IRAC startswitha statementof the issueor questionat hand. In theissue sectionof an IRAC itis importantto stateexactlywhat the questionof lawis. edit RulesThe rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue at hand.The rule section of an IRAC is the s

2、tatement of the rules pertinent indecidingtheissuestated.Rulesin a commonlaw jurisdictionderivefromcourt caseprecedent andstatute. The information included in the rulessection depends heavily on the specificity of the question at hand. Ifthe questionstatesa specificjurisdictionthen it is properto in

3、cluderules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often made inthe rule section is a clear delineation of rules that are inholdingandrules that areobiter dicta.This helps make a correct legal analysisofthe issue at hand. The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules used

4、 in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules. edit Application/AnalysisThe application/ analysis section ofan IRAC applies therulesdevelopedin the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand. Th

5、issection uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC andusually utilizesallthe rules statedincluding exceptionsas isrequiredby the analysis. It is important in this section to apply the rules tothe facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule appliesor does not apply

6、inthe case presented. The application/analysissectionis the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand. edit ConclusionThe conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the question presented in the issue section of the IRAC. It is important for the method

7、ology ofthe IRAC that the conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any newrules or analysis. This section restates the issue and provides the final answer. edit CriticismIRAC has many proponents and opponents. The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC methodology say it reduces legal reas

8、oning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis. Sincean organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors inreasoning, therefore, the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool. The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categories.The first categor

9、y are those who object to using an IRAC because of its strict and unwieldy format. Most of these critics offer an alternativeversion of the IRAC such as MIRAT, IDAR, CREAC,TREACC,CRuPAC, ISAAC and ILAC. Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC andoffermore or less freedom depen

10、ding upon the format.A very good exampleof such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer moreclarity and congruity. They argue this based upon the repetition of theconclusion in the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubtas to the final answer and offer congruity to th

11、e overall reasoning. Italso has an explanationof the rulessectionwhich helps delineaterulesinto stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity.The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends to lead tooverwriting, and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analys

12、is. This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful, careful, well researched essay that is written in a format most amiableto the writer. The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to

13、 the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus. edit An Example IRACA generic IRAC on a law school examwould consist of an answer to a question. The following example demonstrates a generic IRAC as an answer to a question.Person A walks i

14、ntoa grocerystoreand picksup a loafof bread.He thenstuffs the bread beneath his jacket. A security attendant sees him andfollowshim to the cash register.Person A passes through withoutstoppingto pay for anything. The security attendant stops him at the gate. Hedetains person A while he interrogates

15、him. Person A is unresponsive and uncooperative and in fact downright hostile to the charges being leveledat him by the security attendant. Person A is held for a period of two hours at the end of which it is found that he had actually put the loafof bread back and was not stealing. Person A sues th

16、e 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 United States allow recovery for false imprisonment . The courts look at two elements in d

17、etermining whether a person has been falsely imprisoned,namely justcause and authority.In lookingat the element ofjust cause, courts further analyze two factors: reasonablesuspicionand the environment in which the actionstake place.If a person suspects that he is being deprived of propertylegally at

18、tached to him and he can show that his suspicionsare reasonable then he is saidtohave a reasonablesuspicion.Courts also look at whether the activityinquestiontook placein an environment where stealing is common. Crowded publicplaces and shops areconsideredtobe more justifiableplaceswhere a person co

19、uldhave justcause forreasonablesuspicionincomparison to privatepropertyor sparselypopulated areas.Inlookingat the otherelementofauthority,thecourtstendto favor people directly charged with handling security aspeople with the authoritytodetaina personin comparison toprivate individuals. The courts ha

20、ve made exceptions in thefavor of the person conducting the detention if he is ashopkeeper. This specialprivilegeis calledthe shopkeeper'sprivilege. In generalthe element of authorityis usuallyseenas one part of a two part legal justification for legallyjustifiable detention. For example in case

21、s involvingdetentionby an officerof the law,courtshave ruledthattheofficer has to have both just cause and authority. Authority in itself is not enough. The same reasoning applies to alldetaining individuals. Exceptions are made in the case where a person of authority has to conduct an investigation

22、 with justcause and courts usually grant a reasonable amount of time in detention for this purpose. Here the reasonable amount of timea person can be kept in detention is directly related to the circumstances under which the detention takes place.Application/AnalysisPerson A was conducting his activ

23、ity in a crowded place that happened to be a grocery store. He was further detained by asecurity attendant. The security attendant had seen him pick up a loaf of bread and walk past the cash register withoutpaying. The security attendant detained him until he discovered that no theft had taken place

24、. Person A was subsequently released upon this determination of fact.A court looking at these facts would try to apply the twoelements of false imprisonment. The first element of falseimprisonmentis justcause. The firstfactorofjust cause isreasonable suspicion.The securityattendantsaw person A picku

25、p a loaf of bread and stuff it beneath his jacket. This isan uncommon action as most grocery shop customers usually donot hideproduce under their personalbelongings.The securityattendant, therefore, has reasonable suspicion because areasonable person inhis place would have alsoconsideredthisaction t

26、o be suspicious. Person A further walks by the cashregister without paying. The security attendant has alreadyseen person A hiding the bread under his jacket and honestlybelieves that person A is still in possession of the loaf ofbread. Areasonableperson in thesecurity attendant's steadwould arg

27、uably act to stop person A. Thus, this seems tosatisfy the first factor of the element of just cause,reasonable suspicion.The second factor of the element of just cause is theenvironment. The activity takes place in a grocery store. Agrocery store is usually a place where shoplifters and otherthieve

28、s operate regularly. This reduces the burden of justcause placed on the person performing the detention. Thesecurityattendant has to be unusuallyvigilantand suspiciousof a person'smotivebecause of his location.This thenseemsto satisfy the second factor of the element of just cause,environment.Th

29、e second element of false imprisonment is authority. Theperson performing the detention of A is the security attendant of the grocery store. He is the person charged with securingthe grocery store and its property. The security attendantsees person A put the loaf of bread underneath his coat andwalk

30、 through the checkout without paying. The securityattendantnow has to actbecause he has been charged withthesecurity of the store and he has just cause. The securityattendant performs the investigation after he puts person Ain detentionand ittakestwo hours.Two hours might seem likean unreasonable amount oftimebutgiven the fact that personA was unresponsive and uncooperative it seems to bereasonable. It also seems as if the security attendant wasdoing hisdue diligenceas he releasesperson A as